Posted on Jun 10, 2016
9
9
0
If Obama wasn't freeing those terrorists then this sort of thing wouldn't be happening - right?
Uuuummmmmmmmmmmmm ...
Uuuummmmmmmmmmmmm ...
Released Guantanamo Detainees Killed Americans, Officials Believe
Posted from abcnews.go.com
Barack Obama
Terrorism
Guantanamo Bay
Politics
Election 2016
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
4
4
0
I'm going to sit back and wait to see who says this is a liberal news agency, pushing an agenda against Bush, the numbers are incorrect, and that this is all Obama's fault.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
PO2 Robert Aitchison - Of course it's Obama's fault... if he were conducting more drone missions, they would all be dead and if he were conducting less drone missions, they would all just get on with their lives. #ThanksObama
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I hate it when a news article puts the bottom line way in back.
"Of the at least 12 former detainees suspected of killing Americans, nine are now dead or in foreign custody, officials believe. They also say the killings did not occur recently and that all the former detainees involved were released during the George W. Bush administration."
"Of the at least 12 former detainees suspected of killing Americans, nine are now dead or in foreign custody, officials believe. They also say the killings did not occur recently and that all the former detainees involved were released during the George W. Bush administration."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Setting aside for a moment that the released men had been released by Bush, the bigger issue is that we've put ourselves in a completely untenable position here. We've incarcerated hundreds of enemy combatants and are now holding them without charges and without trial, with no plan for dealing with them other than to keep them locked up. While it's likely that some of them need to be kept behind bars, our entire legal system is built on the concept of due process; that is, we don't imprison people, punish people or detain people without following the rules of law including timely charging them and trying them in a court of law. It's impossible to reconcile this with our actions at Gitmo.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
I seriously doubt anybody in there would have qualified as legitimate prisoners of war. The Geneva Conventions govern how POWs are to be treated and how they are defined.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Part I. General Provisions
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Terrorists do none of that. The United States is under no obligation to grant the rights of POWs people who do not qualify.
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Part I. General Provisions
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Terrorists do none of that. The United States is under no obligation to grant the rights of POWs people who do not qualify.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSgt Christopher Brose - Staff; The US is, however, under an obligation to determine if people detained were actually "combatants" in the first place and to release those people who were detained as "combatants" who were NOT "combatants". Simply incarcerating people on the basis of "Well, someone said that they might possibly have been suspected of being associated with people who might have been terrorists (but we don't know if they were actually terrorists or not)." DOES NOT live up to that obligation.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
COL Ted Mc Fair point. My previous post presumed the Gitmo detainees were "enemy combatants" as stated by SGT Eliyahu Rooff, and the point of my post is that not all enemy combatants are deserving of the protections for POWs spelled out in the Geneva Conventions. Terrorists clearly do not qualify.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSgt Christopher Brose - Staff; I will agree that it "would be nice" if ALL the Gitmo detainees were 'enemy combatants'.
Unfortunately that isn't the case and even the Bush administration admitted as much.
Equally unfortunately, the Bush administration didn't see fit to release those people whom it had determined were NOT "enemy combatants" and the rationale for not releasing them was that "They now held an animus towards the United States of America because they felt that they had been unfairly and illegally torn from their families and communities and jailed on spurious charges which even their jailers admitted were spurious but were continuing to be deprived of their families and communities because their jailers that that they now held an animus towards (repeat several times) and therefore it wouldn't be safe to release them until they realized that they had not been unfairly and illegally torn from their families and communities and jailed on spurious charges which even their jailers admitted were spurious and were then still deprived of their families and communities because their jailers that that they now held an animus towards the United States of America - or died, whichever came first".
Unfortunately that isn't the case and even the Bush administration admitted as much.
Equally unfortunately, the Bush administration didn't see fit to release those people whom it had determined were NOT "enemy combatants" and the rationale for not releasing them was that "They now held an animus towards the United States of America because they felt that they had been unfairly and illegally torn from their families and communities and jailed on spurious charges which even their jailers admitted were spurious but were continuing to be deprived of their families and communities because their jailers that that they now held an animus towards (repeat several times) and therefore it wouldn't be safe to release them until they realized that they had not been unfairly and illegally torn from their families and communities and jailed on spurious charges which even their jailers admitted were spurious and were then still deprived of their families and communities because their jailers that that they now held an animus towards the United States of America - or died, whichever came first".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google