Guantanamo man in Iraq bombing

#1
Well well. A former Guantanamo inmate has become a suicide bomber.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7388762.stm

A former Kuwaiti detainee at the US camp at Guantanamo Bay carried out a recent suicide bombing in northern Iraq, the US military has said.

A spokesman for US Central Command told the Associated Press that Abdullah al-Ajmi took part in an attack in Mosul on 29 April that killed several people.

Ajmi and two other Kuwaitis blew up two explosive-packed vehicles next to Iraqi security forces, media reports say.

The US transferred Ajmi to Kuwaiti custody from Guantanamo Bay in 2005.

He was later acquitted by a Kuwaiti court of terrorism charges.

According to Kuwaiti and pan-Arab media reports, Ajmi and his two alleged accomplices, Nasir al-Dawsari and Badr al-Harbi, were able to leave Kuwait a month ago without alerting the attention of the authorities because they had wrongly been issued new passports.

They then travelled to Syria, where Ajmi is reported to have told his family of his intentions, before heading onto Iraq.

The families of Ajmi and Harbi reportedly later received anonymous calls informing them that the men had died in Iraq.
Maybe the yanks do have a reason for not letting them go, or is it that they turned to this in revenge for being wrongly imprisoned?
 
#4
DaPs said:
How do they know who he was? They can hardly identify the body can they?
The head tends to be the main part lying around and so, any recognition is done from this.
 
#5
We may never know if he was a violent nutter before or after his imprisonment. This has no bearing, however, on Gitmo and the fact that those being held there are not being given due process.
 
#6
Well, either way it doesn't look good. He was either innocent, and then became radicalised while he was in Gitmo, or he was always dangerous but was released.
 
#8
DaPs said:
Either way, no one has a right to lock people up with no evidence and/or reason.
Which puts G.W. Bush's US on the level of Nazi Germany, former USSR, current Russia, China, DPRK, Myanmar - to name just a few shining examples.
 
#9
redgrain said:
Which puts G.W. Bush's US on the level of Nazi Germany, former USSR, current Russia, China, DPRK, Myanmar - to name just a few shining examples.
And cutting peoples heads of because they follow a different creed to you is a shining example of how to be an enlightened human being is it?

Those people in Gitmo were in the main foreigners captured in a combat zone on the other side of the battlefield. You can't tell me that there isn't something fishy about that.
 
#10
Praetorian said:
redgrain said:
Which puts G.W. Bush's US on the level of Nazi Germany, former USSR, current Russia, China, DPRK, Myanmar - to name just a few shining examples.
And cutting peoples heads of because they follow a different creed to you is a shining example of how to be an enlightened human being is it?

Those people in Gitmo were in the main foreigners captured in a combat zone on the other side of the battlefield. You can't tell me that there isn't something fishy about that.
I agree - cutting off heads for any reason is barbarous. And being in a combat zone on the other side of a battlefield is certainly suspicious. But, that being said, it doesn't excuse the way that the men in Gitmo were held without charges for years.

If we descend to the level of our enemies, then what are we fighting to defend?
 
#11
redgrain said:
If we descend to the level of our enemies, then what are we fighting to defend?
Good point, but at the end of the day, what we have isn't democracy. For example, to join the police you need to declare that you are not a member of any "racist groups". Surely in a democracy you should not be a member of any political party or group, or at least you could be a member of any!

With the police and the prison service its therefore a case of Fascists no, Communists ok! Just one example of "What are we fighting for". Out of a sample of 100 people, you can guarentee that at least 20% of those are people such as scroungers and junkies you'd quite happily give a 9mm brain haemorrage to.

What we have is not democracy, its a bastardisation of democracy. And IMHO, banging people up without trial, as long as there is due suspicion, is fine.

Being caught behind enemy lines with no excuse for being there is due suspicion. Like those Terry Taliban from Tooting, last time I checked they didn't have weddings in caves in the White Mountains.

Bit of a rant, but you get my drift.

At the end of the day, we're all soldiers, in one way shape or form. If you don't like being a political tool, then sign off. At the moment, we just have to accept it.
 
#12
banging people up without trial, as long as there is due suspicion, is fine.
I disagree with that, but understand where you are coming from.

Imagine that happened in this country(Which is pretty much has now) Say for example you were arrested for any minor offence, drink, drugs, you name it. You could then be kept without trial for weeks, months or years. I know this wouldn't happen too often, but it would be legal. Would you want to live in a country that had rules like that? No habeus corpes?

George Orwells 1984 was meant as a warning, not a guidebook.
 
#13
After Gitmo, I hope nobody expected old boy to join the local convent.

Or did you?
 
#14
DaPs said:
Either way, no one has a right to lock people up with no evidence and/or reason.
Except in the little case of reality we like to call... War.

Why did you come here, do you aim to educate us? 8O
 
#15
In-Limbo, the little case of reality we call war, no matter how bad we feel we need it, still needs that little dose of reality called Laws of War.

Who locks up people, then tries them in secret and doesn't even have the balls to tell them what they are accused of?

I'll tell you who. Mugabe and the junta in Burma and a whole host of third world dictators. And now the the US and all of the sanctimonious SOBs who condone it.

A slap in the face of all that us made us great.

Aaahhh Gitmo! Pol Pot's wet dream!
 
#16
Praetorian said:
redgrain said:
If we descend to the level of our enemies, then what are we fighting to defend?
Good point, but at the end of the day, what we have isn't democracy. For example, to join the police you need to declare that you are not a member of any "racist groups". Surely in a democracy you should not be a member of any political party or group, or at least you could be a member of any!

With the police and the prison service its therefore a case of Fascists no, Communists ok! Just one example of "What are we fighting for". Out of a sample of 100 people, you can guarentee that at least 20% of those are people such as scroungers and junkies you'd quite happily give a 9mm brain haemorrage to.

What we have is not democracy, its a bastardisation of democracy. And IMHO, banging people up without trial, as long as there is due suspicion, is fine.

Being caught behind enemy lines with no excuse for being there is due suspicion. Like those Terry Taliban from Tooting, last time I checked they didn't have weddings in caves in the White Mountains.

Bit of a rant, but you get my drift.

At the end of the day, we're all soldiers, in one way shape or form. If you don't like being a political tool, then sign off. At the moment, we just have to accept it.
I grant you what we have, and live in, is not an ideal democracy at all. But in my mind, that does not give us the excuse, because our system is not perfect, to act as though we live in a police state. What if you or I were deemed to be 'acting suspiciously', whatever that nebulous statement may mean, and so were treated to being banged up and a host of other injustices due to it?

From what I remember reading (cannot find the link as yet), the DoD task force said that abusive interrogation would not help in fighting terror, nor would it serve justice. This from the DoD.

I did find a quote, but not the link, from a Colonel Mallow who commanded the task force, and he said, "No. 1, it’s not going to work. No. 2, if it does work, it’s not reliable. No. 3, it may not be legal, ethical or moral. No. 4, it’s going to hurt you when you have to prosecute these guys. No. 5, sooner or later, all of this stuff is going to come to light, and you’re going to be embarrassed."
 
#17
I am not a fan of Senator McCain, but what he said i really agreed with.

He said that torture doesn't work, and that if we use torture, then we are showing the world that we are just as bad as the evil people of this world. Also, if we are torturing their soldiers etc, what will they be doing to our men if they find out?

I can take this as a reliable reasoning too, seeing as he is a vietnam fighter pilot vet, who was in a prisoner of war camp for 5 and a half years! Insane!
 
#18
DaPs said:
I am not a fan of Senator McCain, but what he said i really agreed with.

He said that torture doesn't work, and that if we use torture, then we are showing the world that we are just as bad as the evil people of this world. Also, if we are torturing their soldiers etc, what will they be doing to our men if they find out?

I can take this as a reliable reasoning too, seeing as he is a vietnam fighter pilot vet, who was in a prisoner of war camp for 5 and a half years! Insane!
Sorry DaPs but the man has already changed his mind. He now firmly believes in torture.

Senator John McCain’s vote last week against a bill to curtail the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of harsh interrogation tactics disappointed human rights advocates who consider him an ally and led Democrats to charge that he was trying to please Republicans as he seeks to rally them around his presidential bid.The bill, which the Senate passed Wednesday by 51 to 45, would force the C.I.A. to abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/17/7110/
 
#19
Wow, i didn't catch that one!

He was saying how bad torture was, and how he spent 5 and a half years being beaten and he votes against that.

Maybe that's why i didn't like the guy! Unbelievable.
 
#20
Hmm I'm not sure why people think gitmo is any different than a POW camp. They won't call them POWs but that is effectively what they are. I don't see anyone whinging about the POWs kept untill WW2 was over, without charge, same thing.

People bitching with the luvvies because they think someone will actually listen. Get some ideas of your own you bunch of fcuking sheep.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top