A good day for America!

Finally the Court has stepped up to say enough is enough.  The US Supreme Court declared yesterday that the president's  military tribunal to try detainees at Guantanamo violates not only the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but also the Geneva conventions.   Perhaps now we will see the administration return to legal and just proceeding against these detainees.   Perhaps we will see a cessation of the ethical atrocities that have shamed all Americans.  Perhaps now we will find that it is not necessary to pervert our traditions of justice in response to terrorism.  The court's decision has made me feel better about America.

Tags

  1. legal
  2. justice
  3. guantanamo
  4. gitmo
  5. leftrightism
  6. crowley
  7. genesthai
  8. ethics
  9. detainees
  10. tribunal
  11. history tracking
  12. rahim rassak

Comments


Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-01 10:25:51 3840
M 2006-07-01 09:57:34 3840
Do you want to disclose your intel to the enemy & and those that ratted out other terrorists to death for their family & friends? It is a non trivial problem indeed! 
The decision actually dealt with that problem at length.  The upshot is that military justice has evolved techniques to legitimately prevent the disclosure of sensitive materials.  Apparently you did not read it.
Actually, I did read it. They are NOT subject to the UCMJ - they are not our soldiers. The president set up the rules of the tribunals, apparently prodedurally too restrictive of the terrorists so-called rights at least for the taste of 5 members of SCOTUS . The Geneva convention III muddys whether they are really subject to the convention or not. The court seemed to say they did. Others say no. In fact the court in one section of the ruling said that question hadn't been determined (as far as Hamden was concerned) & so because of that the tribunals were illegal. See if you can find the answer re: The Geneva Convention III in this treatment of the documents. As I understand it there is no enforcement to the Geneva Conventions.

Seth says
M 2006-07-01 09:57:34 3840
Our civilian courts would take years & millions of dollars to handle the cases -no matter what the outcome.  

Civilian courts are not even in question.  For the most part these are foreign combatants  captured on foreign soil and have no rights to our civilian courts.  The ruling did not preclude a military tribunal.  It did say that such a tribunal must "be consistent with" the Uniform Code of Military Justice and with the treaties to which the US is a signator.   In other words, the rules that the administration setup were illegal.  They were unjust. 

Btw, put yourself in the shoes of some of these detainees ... for example the ones who have been already been releases with no charges filed after years of imprisionment with no recourse ... then ask yourself if the US policy is following the golden rule ... remember group goldenrule ?




Seth says
M 2006-07-01 09:57:34 3840
Do you want to disclose your intel to the enemy & and those that ratted out other terrorists to death for their family & friends? It is a non trivial problem indeed! 
The decision actually dealt with that problem at length.  The upshot is that military justice has evolved techniques to legitimately prevent the disclosure of sensitive materials.  Apparently you did not read it.

Mark de LA says
Sorry, the Golden Rule is inappropriate to this situation.  I have always said that the Golden Rule is for individuals to cultivate within themselves. Eventually when that is the case it will become universal & questions of terrorism will be moot. We are probably a few millenia ahead of ourselves for running a country that way.
Sometimes it takes a few years to determine what is true amongst the terrorists gaming the system & the lies they tell. Too bad. They are enemy combatants! -They should be grateful to Allah that they are still alive.  There is a difference between illegal & unjust see 3836


Mark de LA says
M 2006-07-01 05:58:29 3840
ALL HAIL the AlQueda Bill of Rights!
Sorry , s/b the El Pedo de Culo Bill of Rights.

Mark de LA says
Some of the problems associated with the detainees are outlined in this article from the Seattle-Post Intelligencer 


Seth says
M 2006-07-01 09:57:34 3840
Before you started running your liberal mouth you should have read the Hamdan vs Rumsfield decision (178 pages - downloadable pdf here). None of your shoot-from-the-hip assertions are in there
Actually i did read it.  Now, perhaps you should.  The only assertion of fact that i made was absolutely correct and can easily be assertained by reading either your pdf or mine.
source:  item above
The US Supreme Court declared yesterday that the president's  military tribunal to try detainees at Guantanamo violates not only U.S. military law but also the Geneva conventions.   
The rest of the sentences in my editorial paragraph were obviously my subjective evaluations.  Apparently you don't know how to read English.

Seth says
In a sainer era being conservitive meant that one defended traditions like the right to confront and crossexamine one's accusor.  Consurvitives used to hold to the uniform code of military justice.  But they have abandoned those values.  The have abandoned those vlues in fear of terrorism.  Now they pander to those fears and erode our rights.  All in fear.  M's comments on this item are a prime example.  Now, lead by the Bush administrations squeded logic, they want us to fight terrorism with the same morals from whense it has sprung.  Think, you right wing fear mongers ... think what you are doing.  Then practice the golden rule. 

Mark de LA says
Before you started running your liberal mouth you should have read the Hamdan vs Rumsfield decision (178 pages - downloadable pdf here). None of your shoot-from-the-hip assertions are in there nor does what you insinuate about conservatives hold water. 
source: ... Stevens, writing for the court in the 5-3 ruling, said the Bush administration lacked the authority to take the "extraordinary measure" of scheduling special military trials for inmates, in which defendants have fewer legal protections than in civilian U.S. courts.

Nothing in the ruling suggests shutting down the facility or challenges Bush's authority to detain enemy combatants.
...Note that the 5-3 ruling means that there at least 3 who do not agree & the chief justice didn't participate because he previously backed the administration.

The ruling was based on some interesting technicalities which the media ignores depending upon their normal liberal bias.  Hopefully, Congress will fix it up.

There are some at G'itmo who have sworn that if they are released they will go about killing Americans again (ps. that means not just soldiers or the administration - could be you if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. ) - would you like them released into your neighborhood just because of a technicality in the law ?

Problems here are mainly what do you do with terrorists - they were not a problem when the Geneva conventions were adopted.
Our civilian courts would take years & millions of dollars to handle the cases -no matter what the outcome.  Do you want to disclose your intel to the enemy & and those that ratted out other terrorists to death for their family & friends? It is a non trivial problem indeed!  President Clinton went the civilian law way, & the terrorists just came back and blew up the twin towers anyway. Now Bush has to clean up his mess ! All power to him.


Mark de LA says
M 2006-07-01 06:02:30 3840
3836 shows what our wonderful justice system produces.  Lets require bombers be given a free pass if they haven't been given their Miranda rights.  Does the US Constitution apply to the whole world?

Let us pray that terrorists give us the same kind of rights as they behead more of our soldiers.

Mark de LA says
ALL HAIL the AlQueda Bill of Rights!

Mark de LA says
3836 shows what our wonderful justice system produces.  Lets require bombers be given a free pass if they haven't been given their Miranda rights.  Does the US Constitution apply to the whole world?


Mark de LA says
Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the lawyers in Congress come up with. Somewhere between a speedy trial with all the best lawyers in the world at your table & a summary judgement & firing squad comes something that is humane & yet protects US citizens from more terrorism from those same enemy combatants. Look at how long it took for the Moussaoui trial - & he was a jackass! Imagine what will happen with some of these remaining committed terrorists once they know how to game the system.


Seth says
M 2006-07-01 12:46:02 3840
Apply the golden rule amongst those who do not accept it? It's a personal ethic, NOT a national ethic.

I don't seen anything in the rule "do onto others as you would have others do onto you" about applying the rule only with those who apply it in return.   Check out game theory.  What you are proposing is not the golden rule at all.

source:  M 2006-07-01 12:46:02 3840
I never said it is a national ethic. One thing the Golden Rule kinda depends upon is that there is a culture of life & NOT a culture of death. The Islamo-fascists expect to go to heaven with their 72 virgins after they commit suicide in the name of their Islamo-fascist beliefs & blow up the innocents (this is not even Islam).. With these I would invoke the book of the law - II, 59-60
59. Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
60. Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!


Hmmm i remember that being quoted to me differently:  "Strike hard and low, and to hell with the bastard" .

The golden rule is a Christian ethic ...
source: (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
In other words you front your charatable behavior to the world.  It is diametrically opposed to the Aleister Crowley's version of tit-for-tat.  You are perverting the rule.



Seth says
M 2006-07-01 11:45:02 3840
They are NOT subject to the UCMJ - they are not our soldiers.
Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Seth says
M 2006-07-01 11:35:17 3840
Sorry, the Golden Rule is inappropriate to this situation.  I have always said that the Golden Rule is for individuals to cultivate within themselves. Eventually when that is the case it will become universal & questions of terrorism will be moot. We are probably a few millenia ahead of ourselves for running a country that way.
Sometimes it takes a few years to determine what is true amongst the terrorists gaming the system & the lies they tell. Too bad. They are enemy combatants! -They should be grateful to Allah that they are still alive.  There is a difference between illegal & unjust see 3836

one rarely hears such wishy washy and biased thinking about ethics

Remind me to never take anything you say about the golden rule seriously from now on


Btw, did you even try the though experiment.   Answer the question:  Is the  administration following the golden rule or not ? 

Mark de LA says
What page in the pdf are you referring to? The UCMJ sets up the rulings on how to set up some military tribunals, not try them as soldiers.
seth 2006-07-01 12:13:43 3840
M 2006-07-01 11:45:02 3840
They are NOT subject to the UCMJ - they are not our soldiers.
Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you.


Mark de LA says
source: ... one rarely hears such wishy washy and biased thinking about ethics .  Remind me to never take anything you say about the golden rule seriously from now on .  Btw, did you even try the though experiment. (as much as you did!)  Answer the question:  Is the  administration following the golden rule or not ?
... ignoring the ad hominem shit - who is black & white now . Apply the golden rule amongst those who do not accept it? It's a personal ethic, NOT a national ethic. I never said it is a national ethic. One thing the Golden Rule kinda depends upon is that there is a culture of life & NOT a culture of death. The Islamo-fascists expect to go to heaven with their 72 virgins after they commit suicide in the name of their Islamo-fascist beliefs & blow up the innocents (this is not even Islam).. With these I would invoke the book of the law - II, 59-60
59. Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.
60. Therefore strike hard & low, and to hell with them, master!



Seth says
I don't mean to imply by my last comment that the golden rule is the same rule as trun-the-other-cheek ... only that both rules have the same "front your charatable behavior to others" component.

Seth says
M 2006-07-01 13:46:03 3840

Liber Legis is NOT tit-for-tat

Ok, a correction is in order.  I should have said "The golden rule is diametrically opposed to M's application of Aleister Crowley's  II, 59-60 which freely translated says "strike hard and low and to hell with the bastard".   Just when we are empowered to apply that clause is a bit hidden in esoteric symbols.  How convenient!  Perhaps Breck can give us an alternative interpertation of when that imvocation is supposed to trip in.

Mark de LA says
M 2006-07-01 13:42:35 3840
The Golden Rule is not a suicide pact.  Liber Legis is NOT tit-for-tat - read it 1000 times more as penance for your error!  If I were to be ruled by "tit for tat" I would then be obviously controlled by your tit
The Golden Rule is in ALL major religions, not just Christianity.  Some say it is in Islam. Those references are here.  The Golden Rule is an ethic of reciprocity that may include "turn the other cheek" at it's most agape frontier. 


Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-01 14:13:05 3840
M 2006-07-01 13:46:03 3840

Liber Legis is NOT tit-for-tat

Ok, a correction is in order.  I should have said "The golden rule is diametrically opposed to M's application of Aleister Crowley's  II, 59-60 which freely translated says "strike hard and low and to hell with the bastard".   Just when we are empowered to apply that clause is a bit hidden in esoteric symbols.  How convenient!  Perhaps Breck can give us an alternative interpertation of when that imvocation is supposed to trip in.
I quoted directly from LL. Yours is a perversion.  The book itself says don't change any of the words. Notice I said "I" would invoke the book of the law - II, 59-60 - Breck has nothing to do with it. It is quite clear & needs no interpretation. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. With some deeper study you may someday reconcile both the Law of Thelema & the Golden Rule.

Seth says
M 2006-07-01 12:35:03 3840
What page in the pdf are you referring to? The UCMJ sets up the rulings on how to set up some military tribunals, not try them as soldiers.
seth 2006-07-01 12:13:43 3840
M 2006-07-01 11:45:02 3840
They are NOT subject to the UCMJ - they are not our soldiers.
Apparently the Supreme Court disagrees with you.


Answering point 2:  No proper determination has been made that Hamdan is an
offender triable by military tribunal under the law of war.
source: p26 of the opinion

It follows from those conclusions that Hamdan may not be tried for the war crimes he is charged with except by a court-martial duly convened under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
emphasis mine.


Seth says
M 2006-07-01 14:33:27 3840
I quoted directly from LL. Yours is a perversion. 
 
I quoted directly from Genesthai, his pervision, not mine.

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-01 14:58:55 3840
M 2006-07-01 14:33:27 3840
I quoted directly from LL. Yours is a perversion. 
  I quoted directly from Genesthai, his pervision, not mine.
From memory or one of his books ? If it's memory, it's faulty. (bastard & master have similar sounds). I have about a dozen copies of the book.

Mark de LA says
M 2006-07-01 16:45:11 3840
seth 2006-07-01 14:58:55 3840
M 2006-07-01 14:33:27 3840
I quoted directly from LL. Yours is a perversion. 
  I quoted directly from Genesthai, his pervision, not mine.
From memory or one of his books ? If it's memory, it's faulty. (bastard & master have similar sounds). I have about a dozen copies of the book.
This is all a red herring anyway since we are haggling about my quote of LL & the fact that I would invoke II,60 if confronting a terrorist. It has nothing to do with your faulty or otherwise misquote.

Mark de LA says
You seem to be quoting from a different copy of the ruling. Mine I got of the SCOTUS website & is 185 pages long very small print. Yours is different.  Anyway, the point is that arguments are pro & con & nested & hard to follow. We could both be lawyers & still argue & feel we were both right. It's been 42 years since I read the UCMJ cover to cover & then only to conduct a court martial. I don't think I want to persue this any further from the ruling I have other things to do. You may call it a win for your side of the bench if you like. I say the terrorists also win, but it is only one battle. Hopefully Congress can fix the details in the coming weeks.


Seth says
M 2006-07-02 10:38:32 3840
Are you for Miranda rights for all detainees even though they are caught on foreign soil & follow no rules except kill Americans ?
nope.

Seth says
M 2006-07-01 17:10:19 3840
 Hopefully Congress can fix the details in the coming weeks.

Yep, that appears to be the plan.

Senator Arlen Specter (R) was on face the nation this morning.  He actually gave quite a coherant account of the background of the matter when he was asked something to the effect of "Why not just court marshal the detainees".   Like we can see from the reading of the decision that would have been totally leagal.  The problem with that senario was that the administration does not have sufficient evidance to convict many of the detainees in a legitimate court marshal. Consequently they came up with this tribunal with it's own rules where convictions will be a piece of cake. 

Hey, that's my interpertation of what this republican said, but i didnt say it he did ... go find the transcript and read it for yourself.


Seth says
We have not seen the last of this story ... url http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003101223_gitmo03.html

Mark de LA says
Show me one American, who acts like an American, was born an American who fought for America who has lost his civil rights or the right to habeus corpus & then I might worry. Otherwise it's all just paranoia.


Seth says
M 2006-07-10 21:50:59 3840
Show me one American, who acts like an American, was born an American who fought for America who has lost his civil rights or the right to habeus corpus & then I might worry. Otherwise it's all just paranoia.

Sorry, your surfacy ad hominin distractions do not inform.  Is there a single fact in Smith's or Dean's presentation that you dispute?  Are you telling me that you find Senators Kyl and Graham's manipulations of the legal process to be acceptable?  Did your predijuce prevent you from reading down to the end where Dean says ...


The Hoax Fails: The Supreme Court Is Not Fooled

Hamdan's lawyers, however, spotted the hoax. In their opposition to the motion to dismiss the case, they advised the Court that the supposedly conflicting legislative history was entirely invented after the fact, and that it consisted of "a single scripted colloquy that never actually took place, but was instead inserted into the record after the legislation had passed." The brief noted, quite accurately, that this Graham-Kyl colloquy was "simply an effort to achieve after passage of the Act precisely what [they] failed to achieve in the legislative process."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not decide the jurisdictional issue until it rendered its full ruling on June 29 of this year. There, Justice Stevens concluded correctly that the Congress had not stripped the Court of jurisdiction with the DTA.

Out of an apparent concern for interbranch comity, the High Court has chosen to ignore the bogus brief filed by Senators Graham and Kyl, rather than reprimanding the Senators. Nevertheless, when Graham and Kyl sought to file the very same brief, a month later, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columba, Slate's Emily Bazelon reports that court "issued an unusual order rejecting" their amicus brief alone, although they accepted five others.

No one familiar with this remarkable behavior by Graham and Kyl can doubt why the court did not want to hear from these senators.


Or is this just another case for you of "my country right or wrong" ?  Is this just another case for you of "my administration tells me he is a bad guy, therefore string him up"?

i really wish we could get the quality of political thinking at fastblogit at least one level up from archie bunkerism.


Seth says
Here is a bit more background on this case ...
source: A Matter of Ethics By Christy Hardin Smith

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina ought to be ashamed of themselves.  But more than that, they should be facing state bar sanctions, and an ethics investigation in the Senate.  Both Kyl and Graham issued a press release after the Hamdan decision came down but, not surprisingly, it has no mention that both of them were fraudulent liars who tried to skew the results in the Supreme Court. 

Knowingly filing false information with a court is grounds for disbarment in my state, and I would be very surprised if Arizona and South Carolina didn


Seth says
M 2006-07-10 15:45:21 3840
Kinda looks like more Bush administration bashing to me. Nothing you said in the quotes proves anything at ALL. Lots of unsubstantiated red herrings & ad hominem stuff like "hoodwink" etc.  It is not worth reading any further for me.  Too bad all you & folks like you want to do is give al queda the same rights US citizens have. They don't deserve it.  Too bad these folks at Gitmo were not just killed on the battlefield! - better still behead them like they do to our soldiers & civilians & even reporters. Get a grip & get some perspective.
Well when you wake up and find that your right to habeas corpus has been wiped out by a last minute legislative slight of hand, you may have wished you had paid more attention to the process of how you lost it.

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-10 16:58:15 3840
M 2006-07-10 15:45:21 3840
Kinda looks like more Bush administration bashing to me. Nothing you said in the quotes proves anything at ALL. Lots of unsubstantiated red herrings & ad hominem stuff like "hoodwink" etc.  It is not worth reading any further for me.  Too bad all you & folks like you want to do is give al queda the same rights US citizens have. They don't deserve it.  Too bad these folks at Gitmo were not just killed on the battlefield! - better still behead them like they do to our soldiers & civilians & even reporters. Get a grip & get some perspective.
Well when you wake up and find that your right to habeas corpus has been wiped out by a last minute legislative slight of hand, you may have wished you had paid more attention to the process of how you lost it.
YET another PANIC!

You see, I don't do things like talk to al queda
or plot terror.


Mark de LA says
Ad hominem again & again & again.  Your post doesn't move things beyond
source: ... i really wish we could get the quality of political thinking at fastblogit at least one level up from archie bunkerism.
...HA!



Mark de LA says
M 2006-07-10 21:50:59 3840
Show me one American, who acts like an American, was born an American who fought for America who has lost his civil rights or the right to habeus corpus & then I might worry. Otherwise it's all just paranoia.
In case you didn't notice, this was a challenge. Apparently you went right back into 1722.  I say you can't find one!

Mark de LA says
This is the way that al-Quaida meets out justice - no trial, no charges, just rumor, rage & immediate brutal execution & maiming of random individuals from the group who may have perpetrated an offense. It's like the old west lynchings.  No innocent until proven guilty either!  No judges,lawyers or appeals either  - well, maybe it's not so bad without the lawyers.  


Seth says
M 2006-07-11 07:43:37 3840
This is the way that al-Quaida meets out justice - no trial, no charges, just rumor, rage & immediate brutal execution & maiming of random individuals from the group who may have perpetrated an offense. It's like the old west lynchings.  No innocent until proven guilty either!  No judges,lawyers or appeals either  - well, maybe it's not so bad without the lawyers.  
Yes, it is an detestable kind of injustice.  We should not allow Al-Quaida to convert our justice to their injustice for then they will have met their objectives.

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-07-11 07:59:37 3840
M 2006-07-11 07:43:37 3840
This is the way that al-Quaida meets out justice - no trial, no charges, just rumor, rage & immediate brutal execution & maiming of random individuals from the group who may have perpetrated an offense. It's like the old west lynchings.  No innocent until proven guilty either!  No judges,lawyers or appeals either  - well, maybe it's not so bad without the lawyers.  
Yes, it is an detestable kind of injustice.  We should not allow Al-Quaida to convert our justice to their injustice for then they will have met their objectives.
Yes, and on the other hand if they win due to our bending over backwards & spreading our cheeks, political correctness & miscellaneous bleeding-heartisms they will meet out this punishmnent on US!

Seth says
Update: In Big Shift, U.S. to Follow Geneva Treaty for Detainees  and the actual DOD memo that is the subject of that report. 
This appears to be good news .

What will be interesting is how they comply with this part of Article 3:
source: Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantes which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
I don't see any guidance in the memo on how the commissions are to comply with that.  Perhaps Congress will fix it. 

Mark de LA says
Presumably congress is thinking about it, but first they have to haggle about flag burning & stem cells for the election.
It appears as nothing new. The under secretary England is saying that everything besides the tribunals comply & for everyone to review & report any discrepancies.

Whether congress can really fix the tribunals is doubtful given the political climate to give terrorists all the civil rights in the US Constitution as well as access to all the info we have on them & maybe one of Johnny Cochran's friends as a defense lawyer.


Seth says
Further updates as the Washington Post weighs in on what's happening ...
source: Rethinking Embattled Tactics in Terror War
Six European allies have demanded that President Bush shut down the prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, citing violations of international law and mistreatment of detainees.

And the Supreme Court recently issued a rebuke of the military commissions created by the administration to try detainees, declaring that they violated the Geneva Conventions and were never properly authorized by Congress.

Accustomed to having its way on matters related to the nation's security, the administration is being forced to respond to criticism that it once brushed aside. The high court ruling rejected the White House's assertion that the president has nearly unlimited executive powers during a time of war, and now executive branch lawyers are reviewing whether other rules adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon will have to be revised, especially those concerning the Geneva Conventions.
Like i implied in the title of this item ... this is good news ... this is America getting it's head screwed on right.  I didn't know about the part where our Eurpoean allies demanded shutting down GITMO. I wonder why i missed that.

Mark de LA says
It might be funny but I try not to listen to Leahy. He lost his position on the intelligence committee for leaking secrets some while back. He is called Leaky Leahy in some circles (now that's funny!) Actually, as I see it the Hamden decision said nothing about closing Gitmo. It just said we had to do something about the tribunals etc. The prisoners there are treated within the Geneva Convention except for that which presumably someone in Leaky Leahy's congress is trying to do something about.

Seth says
Not to push anybody's buttons or anything ... but i think this is funny ...
source: Justice Department Lawyer To Congress: The President Is Always Right

LEAHY: The president has said very specifically, and he


Seth says
source: Thanks, William Gibson
The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.

~~Winston Churchill


Seth says
MR 2009-06-22 12:55:54 3840
seth 2009-06-22 12:32:37 3840
MR 2009-06-22 12:23:12 3840
MR 2009-06-22 12:19:31 3840
seth 2009-06-22 12:09:04 3840
We might want to track releases from Guantanamo ...
source: washingtonpost
A federal judge today ordered the release of a 30-year-old detainee from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the government's legal position on his continued confinement "defies common sense."

The detainee, a Syrian held at the military facility since early 2002, was tortured and imprisoned by Al Qaeda and the Taliban before being captured by U.S. forces and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled today from the bench that such circumstances make it "highly unlikely" that the Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Janko was still a member of the terror groups.
...
Yep, release him in the judge's neighborhood - maybe buy him a house next door.


Grudges often last a lot more than 7 years. The Muslims & Jews have been going at a lot longer, centuries??
Which grudge are you talking about ... the one against the Syrians or the one against us for holding without evidence for 7 years?  Do you subscribe to a kind of justice which finds a person in the wrong place, holds him for 7 years, then fears releasing him because now he has a grudge against being held?  I'm sure glad i don't live in a country that you might design
The main point, asshole, is that I don't want them released in this country - no matter what claims of innocence or wrongs they might have suffered.  Terrorism is not a matter for the justice system it is a matter of survival. You are trying your best to suck threefolding into your polarized world & it won't work. I think you should go back and get another glass of Obama-juice & go unconscious for a few more years.

Wow so much bile !  But you might devote just a bit of time to  figuring out what you would do if it were your responsibility.  Would you actually keep this person locked up indefinitely?  And, btw, there is nothing in this news article  about him being released in the USA.  The court just mandated that he be released.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-22 12:32:37 3840
MR 2009-06-22 12:23:12 3840
MR 2009-06-22 12:19:31 3840
seth 2009-06-22 12:09:04 3840
We might want to track releases from Guantanamo ...
source: washingtonpost
A federal judge today ordered the release of a 30-year-old detainee from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the government's legal position on his continued confinement "defies common sense."

The detainee, a Syrian held at the military facility since early 2002, was tortured and imprisoned by Al Qaeda and the Taliban before being captured by U.S. forces and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled today from the bench that such circumstances make it "highly unlikely" that the Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Janko was still a member of the terror groups.
...
Yep, release him in the judge's neighborhood - maybe buy him a house next door.


Grudges often last a lot more than 7 years. The Muslims & Jews have been going at a lot longer, centuries??
Which grudge are you talking about ... the one against the Syrians or the one against us for holding without evidence for 7 years?  Do you subscribe to a kind of justice which finds a person in the wrong place, holds him for 7 years, then fears releasing him because now he has a grudge against being held?  I'm sure glad i don't live in a country that you might design
The main point, asshole, is that I don't want them released in this country - no matter what claims of innocence or wrongs they might have suffered.  Terrorism is not a matter for the justice system it is a matter of survival. You are trying your best to suck threefolding into your polarized world & it won't work. I think you should go back and get another glass of Obama-juice & go unconscious for a few more years.


Seth says
MR 2009-06-22 12:23:12 3840
MR 2009-06-22 12:19:31 3840
seth 2009-06-22 12:09:04 3840
We might want to track releases from Guantanamo ...
source: washingtonpost
A federal judge today ordered the release of a 30-year-old detainee from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the government's legal position on his continued confinement "defies common sense."

The detainee, a Syrian held at the military facility since early 2002, was tortured and imprisoned by Al Qaeda and the Taliban before being captured by U.S. forces and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled today from the bench that such circumstances make it "highly unlikely" that the Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Janko was still a member of the terror groups.
...
Yep, release him in the judge's neighborhood - maybe buy him a house next door.


Grudges often last a lot more than 7 years. The Muslims & Jews have been going at a lot longer, centuries??
Which grudge are you talking about ... the one against the Syrians or the one against us for holding without evidence for 7 years?  Do you subscribe to a kind of justice which finds a person in the wrong place, holds him for 7 years, then fears releasing him because now he has a grudge against being held?  I'm sure glad i don't live in a country that you might design

Mark de LA says
MR 2009-06-22 12:19:31 3840
seth 2009-06-22 12:09:04 3840
We might want to track releases from Guantanamo ...
source: washingtonpost
A federal judge today ordered the release of a 30-year-old detainee from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the government's legal position on his continued confinement "defies common sense."

The detainee, a Syrian held at the military facility since early 2002, was tortured and imprisoned by Al Qaeda and the Taliban before being captured by U.S. forces and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled today from the bench that such circumstances make it "highly unlikely" that the Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Janko was still a member of the terror groups.
...
Yep, release him in the judge's neighborhood - maybe buy him a house next door.


Grudges often last a lot more than 7 years. The Muslims & Jews have been going at a lot longer, centuries??

Seth says
We might want to track releases from Guantanamo ...
source: washingtonpost
A federal judge today ordered the release of a 30-year-old detainee from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the government's legal position on his continued confinement "defies common sense."

The detainee, a Syrian held at the military facility since early 2002, was tortured and imprisoned by Al Qaeda and the Taliban before being captured by U.S. forces and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled today from the bench that such circumstances make it "highly unlikely" that the Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Janko was still a member of the terror groups.
...

Mark de LA says
Well, I guess it's a waste of time linking to sources for you - you have your mind made up anyway. Now, cherry-picked is your favorite word. The administration's favorite word now is distraction. You probably need to get on board. Label something a distraction and the M$M cowers & goes away; ending a news front officially by declaration.
 

Seth says
MR 2009-06-22 06:53:12 3840
seth 2009-06-21 16:26:58 3840
MR 2009-06-21 16:06:26 3840
For one thing Bush wouldn't release detainees into the US. or it's territories. The disconnect is that was any difference besides the above between them. Only 1/4 of the detainees would ever get a trial.  Hope & Change, bullshit & tripe! The difference was symbolism over substance.
I totally disagree with your characterization again.  For one thing there is no evidence that Obama intends to release dangerous detainees into the US.  Suggesting that is baseless fear mongering.  As to the Uighurs being transferred to South Pacific islands, well they were not a threat to the US, they havent committed any crime or acts of terrorism against the US, instead they are opposed the opressive regime in China.  You do not get any crediabliity for your stance by twisting facts.
Obama won't rule out releasing detainees in US - his press secretary says.  Already some have been returned to Saudi Arabia & returned to terrorism. CNN says Gitmo detainees recividism rate on the rise. Why were the Uighurs trained by al queda?
I recommend you get your head out of the sand!
Well i read those kind of cherry picked reports and studied the issues prior to making my comment above.  Of course you can find supporting articles for whatever view you hold on the internet.  I assume that you well know that just pointing to articles does not make your case.  You continue to make your little unjustified barbs in your comments on my blog but you never do actually inform with well sourced substantive arguments.  Too bad, i would have welcomed the dialogue. 

Mark de LA says
I wonder why this cartoon showed up?



Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-21 16:26:58 3840
MR 2009-06-21 16:06:26 3840
For one thing Bush wouldn't release detainees into the US. or it's territories. The disconnect is that was any difference besides the above between them. Only 1/4 of the detainees would ever get a trial.  Hope & Change, bullshit & tripe! The difference was symbolism over substance.
I totally disagree with your characterization again.  For one thing there is no evidence that Obama intends to release dangerous detainees into the US.  Suggesting that is baseless fear mongering.  As to the Uighurs being transferred to South Pacific islands, well they were not a threat to the US, they havent committed any crime or acts of terrorism against the US, instead they are opposed the opressive regime in China.  You do not get any crediabliity for your stance by twisting facts.
Obama won't rule out releasing detainees in US - his press secretary says.  Already some have been returned to Saudi Arabia & returned to terrorism. CNN says Gitmo detainees recividism rate on the rise. Why were the Uighurs trained by al queda?
I recommend you get your head out of the sand!

Seth says
MR 2009-06-21 16:06:26 3840
For one thing Bush wouldn't release detainees into the US. or it's territories. The disconnect is that was any difference besides the above between them. Only 1/4 of the detainees would ever get a trial.  Hope & Change, bullshit & tripe! The difference was symbolism over substance.
I totally disagree with your characterization again.  For one thing there is no evidence that Obama intends to release dangerous detainees into the US.  Suggesting that is baseless fear mongering.  As to the Uighurs being transferred to South Pacific islands, well they were not a threat to the US, they havent committed any crime or acts of terrorism against the US, instead they are opposed the opressive regime in China.  You do not get any crediabliity for your stance by twisting facts.

Seth says
MR 2009-06-21 13:32:22 3840
seth 2009-06-21 13:14:45 3840
source: MR above
Hopefully in the next election these disconnects by the candidate will be held accountable.
Well i dont see any big disconnect here.  He said he would close Guantanmo and so did McCain. He started the process in the first days of his presidency.  Now it has become clear that the inmates are going to fall in 3 catagories (1) transfered to other countries - mayny of them already have been (2) tried in the fairest manner possible, or (3) held without trial in the US.  He never said it would be easy, and now his attorney general is dealing with the difficult situation as best he can.  Where exaclty is the disconnect?
Obama polarized himself to Bush who was doing the same thing.  There is no difference.

Well that is not a accurate characterization of what happened.  Bush did mention that he intended to close Guantanamo, but he did not issue a command do do so, as did Obama; nor did he expeditiously start going through cases and making it happen, as is Holder now.  But again, your diversion notwithstanding, how is there any substantive disconnect between what Obama said before the campaign and what he is doing now?   Certainly any fair judgment of his actions must take into account that he was not privvy to the facts of individual cases prior to taking office. 

Mark de LA says
Gitmo causes more terrorists to be recruited???See how ridiculous it sounds:
source: ...

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., called the charge "palpably false" and said the White House has not provided any evidence to back up the claim. 

"He meant to say that 770 people or more became terrorists because we have a prison at Guantanamo?" Kyl said on "FOX News Sunday." 

"9/11 hijackers didn't do their deeds because of Gitmo. The people who ... blew up the (U.S.S.) Cole or the Kolbar Towers or the first World Trade Center didn't say, 'There's Gitmo down there,' because it didn't exist. And even after that I don't think you saw guys sitting around in some coffee shop in Saudi Arabia, saying, 'You know, those Americans have this prison called Gitmo, I think I'll become a terrorist,'" he said. "I mean, it's palpably false to suggest that the existence of Gitmo created terrorism, and yet the president gets away with that." 

...


Mark de LA says
Fascinating information bubbles up as President Obama mulls how close Gitmo while the Democrat Congress seems to oppose releasing those prisoners into the US jails or brigs on military bases. 
Is the president going to go back to rendition instead?  There are indications in this NY Times article & in the Volokh Conspiracy blog.
source: ... Leon E. Panetta, the director of the C.I.A., said in February that the agency might continue its program of extraordinary rendition, in which captured terrorism suspects are transferred to other countries without extradition proceedings.
He said the C.I.A. would be likely to continue to transfer detainees from their place of capture to other countries, either their home countries or nations that intended to bring charges against them.

As a safeguard against torture, Mr. Panetta said, the United States would rely on diplomatic assurances of good treatment. The Bush administration sought the same assurances, which critics say are ineffective.

One provision in one of Obama’s orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis." - Volokh Consp.
... symbolism over substance & campaign promises versus reality seem to be the order for the day with Obama.


Mark de LA says
I still want to see the whole world complain & revolt when terrorists kidnap & capture Americans somewhere and hold & torture them without giving them their constitutional rights & writs of habeas corpus! We could start with the journalists held in North Korea.


Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-21 13:14:45 3840
source: MR above
Hopefully in the next election these disconnects by the candidate will be held accountable.
Well i dont see any big disconnect here.  He said he would close Guantanmo and so did McCain. He started the process in the first days of his presidency.  Now it has become clear that the inmates are going to fall in 3 catagories (1) transfered to other countries - mayny of them already have been (2) tried in the fairest manner possible, or (3) held without trial in the US.  He never said it would be easy, and now his attorney general is dealing with the difficult situation as best he can.  Where exaclty is the disconnect?
Obama polarized himself to Bush who was doing the same thing.  There is no difference.


Mark de LA says
MR 2009-06-21 08:14:15 3840
~
source: ...

What would candidate Obama say upon hearing the news that President Obama's attorney general acknowledged yesterday that the administration will continue to hold terror suspects without trial indefinitely?


...
ibid: ...

Yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that only about a quarter of the detainees now held at Guantanamo Bay would ever get a trial -- civilian or military. Sen. Lindsey Graham said he thought roughly 25 percent of detainees would stand trial, and Holder said that figure was "about right," the Associated Press reported

"I don't think we're going to have a very huge number" go to trial, Holder reiterated.


... Hopefully in the next election these disconnects by the candidate will be held accountable.
I like this from one of the readers on the above article:

Patron: Would you have any of the 2008 Obama Roseannadanna?
Somelier: Of course sir. It complements the fish, the bull and the tripe.



Seth says
MR 2009-06-22 15:53:49 3840
Send them back home. If their homeland doesn't want them then put them back where they were found. If that is America, put them outside the gates in Cuba. The problem here is that all we hear is some fucking judge decided to release them. We never hear the whole story like how they were captured in the first place, what were they doing, what were the sources which identified them as suspicious, ....etc.   Perhaps the military has more sense than a civilian judge. Beyond any reasonable doubt isn't the best criteria when dealing with people who will commit suicide to kill you.
Dealing with people who are outside of the law inside the law is a really strange dilemma.
Perhaps only judges who have served in the military for 4 or more years should be deemed qualified to judge those at Gitmo.

There was actually quite a bit of details in the wasingtonpost article that i sourced including the fact that he was captured in Kandahar after being tortured for 18 months by the Taliban.  Apparently this is not a matter of "beyond any reasonable doubt" this looks more like a matter of no evidence whatsoever.  And yes, the judge did order "diplomatic efforts" to find a [foreign] location to release him.  It is the grist of a tyrant to disappear people based upon the faintest hint of a threat.  But that is not what we as American people do.  Perhaps you should consider moving to a country with a strong man in charge and no need for the due process of law.

Seth says
There is a little more information in this yahoo news story that was not in the washingtonpost
source: yahoo news
Federal prosecutors had argued that even though Rassak was tortured by al-Qaida as a suspected Western spy and imprisoned by the Taliban for a year and a half, he still maintained some kind of allegiance to his tormentors.

"I disagree!" wrote the judge, adding that U.S. officials are "taking a position that defies common sense."

The judge said the government and the U.S. media initially mistook Rassak as one of a number of suicide martyrs, based on a videotape captured at an al-Qaida safehouse. Further investigation found the tape actually showed al-Qaida torturing him.

In a 13-page written decision, the judge heaped scorn on the suggestion that Rassak could be part of the same terrorist organizations that had abused him.

Rassak, a Syrian, had admitted to U.S. interrogators that in 2000, he stayed for several days at a guesthouse used by Taliban and al-Qaida fighters, where he helped clean weapons, and then briefly attended a terror training camp.

"There is no evidence — from either side — as to why he suddenly was suspected by al-Qaida leaders of spying and was tortured for months into giving a false confession," Leon wrote. "It is highly unlikely that by that point in time al-Qaida (or the Taliban) had any trust or confidence in him. Surely extreme treatment of that nature evinces a total evisceration of whatever relationship might have existed!"

One of the detainee's lawyers, Steven Wax, said the judge's decision "is yet another reminder that there are innocent men in Guantanamo."

Wax said his client "was conscripted by the Taliban and, when he wanted to leave, was imprisoned and then subjected to barbaric torture. He was imprisoned by the United States when he tried to provide information to us about his torturers."

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said it was reviewing the judge's ruling.

Since his captivity at Guantanamo, Rassak has adopted a different last name, Janko.

There are 229 detainees still held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Barack Obama ordered the detention center closed by early next year.
Now certainly there is room for doubt - either way.  It will be interesting to see if the US justice department is confident enough in their prosecution to appeal the ruling.

Seth says
MR 2009-06-22 19:22:48 3840
seth 2009-06-22 17:29:48 3840
MR 2009-06-22 15:53:49 3840
Send them back home. If their homeland doesn't want them then put them back where they were found. If that is America, put them outside the gates in Cuba. The problem here is that all we hear is some fucking judge decided to release them. We never hear the whole story like how they were captured in the first place, what were they doing, what were the sources which identified them as suspicious, ....etc.   Perhaps the military has more sense than a civilian judge. Beyond any reasonable doubt isn't the best criteria when dealing with people who will commit suicide to kill you.
Dealing with people who are outside of the law inside the law is a really strange dilemma.
Perhaps only judges who have served in the military for 4 or more years should be deemed qualified to judge those at Gitmo.

There was actually quite a bit of details in the wasingtonpost article that i sourced including the fact that he was captured in Kandahar after being tortured for 18 months by the Taliban.  Apparently this is not a matter of "beyond any reasonable doubt" this looks more like a matter of no evidence whatsoever.  And yes, the judge did order "diplomatic efforts" to find a [foreign] location to release him.  It is the grist of a tyrant to disappear people based upon the faintest hint of a threat.  But that is not what we as American people do.  Perhaps you should consider moving to a country with a strong man in charge and no need for the due process of law.
There are lots of holes in the story for reasonable doubt on both sides. If Syria is not on Obama's list of terrorist countries why not send him back there. Perhaps he has been in US custody so long that any al Qaeda group wouldn't trust him. The rest of your stuff is shit. Maybe you have a spare room to house this guy & maybe his lawyer too. You should post a vacancy on the web for him.  If terrorists were not cowards who blow up women & children & people that look like you then they might wear uniforms & fight like men. This is not like a baseball game where an umpire calls you safe at first & you get to stay there. Nobody suggested disappearing anyone.  Terrorists are people who do not respect the law, nor human rights nor many of the other civilized things that I at least do. [your rwg move not permitted on my blog ]

I'll respond to the bolded sentence in your post that holds some slight interest to me.   Bear in mind that the court which granted the writ of habeas corpus based their judgement upon evidence which was presented in court.  That information is not avaiable to us.  The court did not make their decision based upon the washington post artile.  You assumption that he is a terrorist is unfounded. You could only arrive at that conclusion if you had access to that information.  [barb reluctantly omitted]

Seth says
MR 2009-06-22 21:54:51 3840
If a terrorist can lie to get out of being tortured he can certainly lie if he is not being tortured. The absence of information suggesting he is guilty does not mean he is innocent! (that's why most verdicts say "not guilty" rather than innocent.)It may be that the CIA or special forces don't want to reveal sources & methods sufficiently to a civilian judge.  In some cases the detainees have been out of circulation long enough, such as this guy, that it is a moot matter. That doesn't mean that the jihad has gone out of him. Again, are you willing based on all you know to have this guy live next to you & your family?
 
Well with the information that i have available to me I am not going to sit here and assume that this person is a terrorist.  Perhaps you can find out more factual information about his case.  Your ending question is out of bounds because he is not going to be released in this country.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-23 08:45:54 3840
MR 2009-06-22 21:54:51 3840
If a terrorist can lie to get out of being tortured he can certainly lie if he is not being tortured. The absence of information suggesting he is guilty does not mean he is innocent! (that's why most verdicts say "not guilty" rather than innocent.)It may be that the CIA or special forces don't want to reveal sources & methods sufficiently to a civilian judge.  In some cases the detainees have been out of circulation long enough, such as this guy, that it is a moot matter. That doesn't mean that the jihad has gone out of him. Again, are you willing based on all you know to have this guy live next to you & your family?
 
Well with the information that i have available to me I am not going to sit here and assume that this person is a terrorist.  Perhaps you can find out more factual information about his case.  Your ending question is out of bounds because he is not going to be released in this country.
The ending question was a test of your relationship to ex-jihaddis & your certainty that he is not one rather than a practical matter.


Seth says
MR 2009-06-23 11:21:58 3840
seth 2009-06-23 08:45:54 3840
MR 2009-06-22 21:54:51 3840
If a terrorist can lie to get out of being tortured he can certainly lie if he is not being tortured. The absence of information suggesting he is guilty does not mean he is innocent! (that's why most verdicts say "not guilty" rather than innocent.)It may be that the CIA or special forces don't want to reveal sources & methods sufficiently to a civilian judge.  In some cases the detainees have been out of circulation long enough, such as this guy, that it is a moot matter. That doesn't mean that the jihad has gone out of him. Again, are you willing based on all you know to have this guy live next to you & your family?
 
Well with the information that i have available to me I am not going to sit here and assume that this person is a terrorist.  Perhaps you can find out more factual information about his case.  Your ending question is out of bounds because he is not going to be released in this country.
The ending question was a test of your relationship to ex-jihaddis & your certainty that he is not one rather than a practical matter.

Obviously i have no "relationship" to ex-jihaddis - what a malicious unnecessary smear.  I've already said all that I need to say about my "certainty", see my comment 2009-06-23 09:40:02 above.  I am glad that i am not in the position to decide about the particulars of his release based upon the information that i have at hand.  Would you be comfortable deciding his fate based upon the information that you have?

Mark de LA says
     You always have some kind of a relationship, even if it is just to blog about them or refrain from blogging about them. Not a smear! None intended. In the beginning of this offshoot you seemed to have the relationship of opposing their incarceration, agreeing with the judge. As more information came out on this one's story you grew more ambiguous. Everything that you are aware of you have some kind of relationship with however weak bonded or indifferent you might be about it.
     If it is true that Janko once tried to join the Taliban & went for training in an AlQueda camp I don't want him anywhere near my neighborhood or this country. I would not give him the benefit of the doubt (either way). The judge can make his ruling on further incarceration, but if he were to free Janko into this country I would lead the way towards the judge's impeachment.  That is my relationship to an ex-jihadi & judges without common sense.


Seth says
MR 2009-06-23 13:18:48 3840
     You always have some kind of a relationship, even if it is just to blog about them or refrain from blogging about them. Not a smear! None intended. In the beginning of this offshoot you seemed to have the relationship of opposing their incarceration, agreeing with the judge. As more information came out on this one's story you grew more ambiguous. Everything that you are aware of you have some kind of relationship with however weak bonded or indifferent you might be about it.
     If it is true that Janko once tried to join the Taliban & went for training in an AlQueda camp I don't want him anywhere near my neighborhood or this country. I would not give him the benefit of the doubt (either way). The judge can make his ruling on further incarceration, but if he were to free Janko into this country I would lead the way towards the judge's impeachment.  That is my relationship to an ex-jihadi & judges without common sense.

It is interesting how people must change the characterization of a thing so that their attitude towards it will sound more reasonable.  For example to say: "I don't want Janko anywhere near my neighborhood because he he stayed for several days at a guesthouse used by al-Qaida, where he helped clean weapons and was later totured by the Taliban", doesn't sound all that very reasonable.  Hense you had to change it to what you said above.  So little assumptions creep into the description which go beyond the facts given.  When it goes through several blogs it is almost unrecognizable by the originator.  This is something that i would like to track. 

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-06-23 14:26:11 3840
MR 2009-06-23 13:18:48 3840
     You always have some kind of a relationship, even if it is just to blog about them or refrain from blogging about them. Not a smear! None intended. In the beginning of this offshoot you seemed to have the relationship of opposing their incarceration, agreeing with the judge. As more information came out on this one's story you grew more ambiguous. Everything that you are aware of you have some kind of relationship with however weak bonded or indifferent you might be about it.
     If it is true that Janko once tried to join the Taliban & went for training in an AlQueda camp I don't want him anywhere near my neighborhood or this country. I would not give him the benefit of the doubt (either way). The judge can make his ruling on further incarceration, but if he were to free Janko into this country I would lead the way towards the judge's impeachment.  That is my relationship to an ex-jihadi & judges without common sense.

It is interesting how people must change the characterization of a thing so that their attitude towards it will sound more reasonable.  For example to say: "I don't want Janko anywhere near my neighborhood because he he stayed for several days at a guesthouse used by al-Qaida, where he helped clean weapons and was later totured by the Taliban", doesn't sound all that very reasonable.  Hense you had to change it to what you said above.  So little assumptions creep into the description which go beyond the facts given.  When it goes through several blogs it is almost unrecognizable by the originator.  This is something that i would like to track. 

Track your own deletions, distortions & generalizations:(common human groking)
above: ... Rassak, a Syrian, had admitted to U.S. interrogators that in 2000, he stayed for several days at a guesthouse used by Taliban and al-Qaida fighters, where he helped clean weapons, and then briefly attended a terror training camp.

...so what kind of a person would stay at such a house & help clean weapons & then attend a terror training camp?  A terrorist perhaps?


Mark de LA says
The Christian Science Monitor adds more info:
source: ... Janko is a Syrian national who lived with his family in the United Arab Emirates. In 2000, after a dispute with his father, he went to Afghanistan and spent 18 days in an Al Qaeda training camp before being accused of spying for the US. Later, he was sent by US officials to Guantánamo.

In January 2002, US military forces found him in a notorious Afghan prison where Al Qaeda and Taliban officials allegedly tortured him for 18 months because they suspected he was an American spy.


...Whatever went through the Syrian's mind when he left the UAE landed him in Gitmo. One would wonder what the unclassified 13 page ruling looks like. (Judge Richard J. Leon is apparently involved in at least 8 cases- 6 to be released)


Seth says
MR 2009-06-23 16:01:19 3840
The Christian Science Monitor adds more info:
source: ... Janko is a Syrian national who lived with his family in the United Arab Emirates. In 2000, after a dispute with his father, he went to Afghanistan and spent 18 days in an Al Qaeda training camp before being accused of spying for the US. Later, he was sent by US officials to Guantánamo.

In January 2002, US military forces found him in a notorious Afghan prison where Al Qaeda and Taliban officials allegedly tortured him for 18 months because they suspected he was an American spy.


...Whatever went through the Syrian's mind when he left the UAE landed him in Gitmo. One would wonder what the unclassified 13 page ruling looks like. (Judge Richard J. Leon is apparently involved in at least 8 cases- 6 to be released)

I don't see much of anything new here that was not already known ... perhaps only some rearranging of words.  What did i miss?  I think what we need now is the text of those 13 pages, which probably with a little effort could be found.

Mark de LA says
I had the questions, exposed in my link, about what was a Syrian doing when he was captured. Where was he captured? (Afganistan) Why did he go there? You did not publish them. I went looking for them. Judge Leon's Wikipedia bio also lists links to individuals incarcerated in Gitmo as well. You were complaining about stuff being left out of the picture. The bigger the picture the less innocent Janko looks to me. It would be interesting to examine, the medical evidence of his torture.

See Also

  1. Thought Inquiry: The nature of an individual to a group. with 279 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  2. Thought War with North Korea with 189 viewings related by tag "history tracking".
  3. Thought The Current Political Drama with 155 viewings related by tag "history tracking".
  4. Thought Notes on Reality by Aleister Crowley with 151 viewings related by tag "crowley".
  5. Thought γενέσθαι - Genesthai with 137 viewings related by tag "genesthai".
  6. Thought Drums of War for the Norks (North Koreans) with 47 viewings related by tag "history tracking".
  7. Thought Posting on Face Book to ... with 39 viewings related by tag "justice".
  8. Thought Belief is the Enemy of Knowledge with 18 viewings related by tag "crowley".
  9. Thought Ancient Wisdoms in Politics & Ethics with 15 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  10. Thought Golden Rule & Islam - Burning Questions with 13 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  11. Thought Lucifer vs Ahriman with 8 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  12. Thought 9 years left & counting .... with 8 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  13. Thought The Law versus Justice with 5 viewings related by tag "justice".
  14. Thought Al Franken plus a pile of shit still is Al Franken with 5 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  15. Thought The drums of war on Iran with 3 viewings related by tag "history tracking".
  16. Thought Moral Equivalency & Moral Relativism with 2 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  17. Thought Obama Union Thugs with 2 viewings related by tag "history tracking".
  18. Thought AC on Golden Rule with 2 viewings related by tag "crowley".
  19. Thought about: Partial Birth Abortion with 1 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  20. Thought about: NPR : 'Talking Right': Why the Left Is Losing, Linguistically with 1 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  21. Thought about: Video: 50 year study says conservatives 'followers' with 1 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  22. Thought William, shame on you ! with 1 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  23. Thought AHA! with 1 viewings related by tag "crowley".
  24. Thought Journalist Code of Ethics with 1 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  25. Thought The Abyss with 1 viewings related by tag "crowley".
  26. Thought about: Alister Crowley speaking in The Equinox with 1 viewings related by tag "crowley".
  27. Thought Denise and i went to the movies ... with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  28. Thought Hype 101 - Al Gore Lies some more with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  29. Thought about: Political Compass with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  30. Thought Chicago Style Thug Politics - NO CHANGE just Obama with 0 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  31. Thought Will Obama be successful in stopping the growth of Jewish settlements? with 0 viewings related by tag "history tracking".
  32. Thought about: U.S. Seeks Silence on CIA Prisons with 0 viewings related by tag "detainees".
  33. Thought about: The Audacity of Hops with 0 viewings related by tag "history tracking".
  34. Thought about: Cheney really wants U.S. dictator with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  35. Thought The Shame of War In A Democracy with 0 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  36. Thought My Ethic with Others with 0 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  37. Thought #BozoEthics with 0 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  38. Thought Independent Judiciary with 0 viewings related by tag "justice".
  39. Thought Pelosi Threat with 0 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  40. Thought The Left-Right political spectrum with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  41. Thought Enron - Ken Lay with 0 viewings related by tag "legal".
  42. Thought Embryonic Stem Cell Debate with 0 viewings related by tag "ethics".
  43. Thought TRUTH or JUSTICE? Keeping the Peace is Failing with 0 viewings related by tag "justice".
  44. Thought Watch Jay Leno Wednesday Night! with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  45. Thought Why I Won't watch an Al Gore Movie with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  46. Thought about: Thelema - A Modern Religion for Modern Times || kuro5hin.org with 0 viewings related by tag "crowley".
  47. Thought Bush em with Coulter ... make em shiny and bright! with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  48. Thought Little Essays on Truth with 0 viewings related by tag "crowley".
  49. Thought Politics is subverting Science with 0 viewings related by tag "leftrightism".
  50. Thought 666 with 0 viewings related by tag "crowley".