When the police arrest someone of burglary, and then eventually let them go for lack of evidence, and then later they are caught red handed committing a burglary, how often do we say "the police created a burglar"?

On a similar note with Kazinski...

I never get the "we created the problem" theory. the basic syllogism goes like this:

1. Suicide bombers are created by injustice.
2. We create injustice.
3. Therefore we get suicide bombed.

Ditto with isreal, of course.

But as any fair minded person will point out, whatever you think of Isreal and America, they are not the worst actors in the region. Look at Saddam, back when he was alive. Look at Iran. Look at Saudi. The list goes on and on. They are all much much worst than the worst fever dreams of the modern left. So, if premise that suicide bombers are created by injustice is true, then why didn't Saddam have literally millions of suicide bombers coming after him? What about Iran? At most, you see AQ doesn't like the Saudis very much.

And for that matter, if injustice leads to suicide bombings, then why wasn't it 19 cherokees on 9-11? And why aren't the tibetans suicide bombing the chinese? Or for that matter, why aren't christians all over the muslim world suicide bombing their governments? there is no question that the west treats its muslims much better than the muslim middle east treats its christians. you cannot even have a bible in Saudi.

All this really is, is "why do they hate us" version 2.0. When people blamed america first after 9-11, most americans rejected it. now they are blaming america first for post-9-11 terrorism and more people are buying it.

But its a moral inversion. When the KKK murdered 4 little girls when attending sunday school at the 16th St. Baptist church, in 1963, we took it as evidence of the evil and depravity of their underlying cause. Ditto on Tim McVeigh. But suddenly with 9-11 and post-9-11 terrorism, we take their depravity as a sign of their morality. Why we should take our moral cues from those who make no attempt to obey even the most basic dictates of concience is beyond me.

ERH,

So going to prison for loitering is to being at Guantanamo as burglarizing someone is to suicide bombing? I don't think that quite works.

But as any fair minded person will point out, whatever you think of Isreal and America, they are not the worst actors in the region. Look at Saddam, back when he was alive. Look at Iran. Look at Saudi. The list goes on and on

Certainly there are more brutal and corrupt governments in the Middle East. But in the eyes of extremists, the "worst" thing is for infidels to invade the holy land. A category that only the US and Israel will qualify for.

Several people who've *worked* at Gitmo have attested to their feeling that "if they weren't terrorists before, they are now."

I think I'll credit their impressions over those of blog commenters, for the time being.

I hate to mention this but an incitement to riot is not a justification for the crime of riot.

According to Wikipedia here is the summary of evidence used in his status hearing at Gitmo. To be sure he denies it all, but:

The following primary factors favor continued detention:

A. Al Ajmi is a Taliban fighter:
Al Ajmi went AWOL from the Kuwaiti military in order to travel to Afghanistan participate in the Jihad.
Al Ajmi was issued an AK-47, ammunition and hand grenades by the Taliban.
B. Al Ajmi participated in military operations against the coalition.
Al Ajmi admitted he was in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban in the Bagram area.
Al Ajmi was placed in a defensive position by the Taliban in order to block the Northern Alliance.
Al Ajmi admitted spending eight months on the front line at the Aiubi Center, Afghanistan.
Al Ajmi admitted engaging in two or three fire fights with the Northern Alliance.
Al Ajmi retreated to the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan and was later captured as he attempted to escape to Pakistan.
C. Al Ajmi is committed to jihad.
Al Ajmi went AWOL because he wanted to participate in the jihad in Afghanistan but could not get leave from the military.
In Aug 2004, Al Ajmi wanted to make sure that when the case goes before the Tribunal, they know that he now is a Jihadist, an enemy combatant, and that he will kill as many Americans as he possibly can.
D. Upon arrival at GTMO, Al Ajmi has been constantly in trouble. Al Ajmi's overall behavior has been aggressive and non-compliant, and he has resided in GTMO's disciplinary blocks throughout his detention.
E. Based upon a review of recommendations from U.S. agencies and classified and unclassified documents, Al Ajmi is regarded as a continued threat to the United States and its Allies.

The following primary factors favor release or transfer:

No information available.

I guess the loitering analogy is the closest fit.

Several posters above seem to confuse justification with cause. The US's actions in the middle east probably do not justify terrorism under most ethical systems. The US is probably not even be the worst actor in the region. Nonetheless, treating people in the region the way we do seems to cause them to become terrorists. If you want to prevent terrorism, you don't look at whether terrorism is justified by your actions, you look at whether it is caused by your actions. It's the same as how you sometimes apologize to your significant other, not because they are justified in being mad at you, but because if you don't, you are going to have to deal with them being mad at you anyways.

I will credit the fact that he blew someone up with a bomb as the proof I need over any anonymous sources. The "wrong left turn in Istanbul while tracking my lost goats somehow ended up with an AK47 in Afghanistan" explanation the left seems to prefer loses some luster when the poor goatherd blows people up after release.

Of the hundreds of prisoners who have passed through Gitmo, its really not surprising that some will actually turn out to be terrorists.

But given that less than 10% (IIRC) of the prisoners at Gitmo were initially detained by US forces (as opposed to Pakistani, etc.) I would be very surprised if those arrests were properly made.

I can tell you right now that if I were put in some hypothetical Belgian equivalent of Guantanamo unjustly, I would do or say anything that would get me out, and then spend the rest of my life trying to kill as many Belgian people as possible. Sure, it would be more rational for me to try to kill the leaders responsible for the policy, and if I thought I could get close to them, I would -- but I would have much better odds at killing random civilians. Still, in liberal democracies, people are responsible for the leadership of their country, and when the leadership pursues policies which would lead me to be locked up, all citizens bear responsibility. Of course, maybe then Belgians' families would then pursue anti-American policies, leading to more Americans being killed or tortured, leading to more suicide bombings. Still, that wouldn't exactly be at the top of my mind. Revenge would be.

But if not this way, then how do you think family feuds get started and continue for so long?

You do understand, don't you, that the vast majority of the people who have passed through Gitmo were there because they were handed to us in handcuffs by the Pakistanis and others?

Furthermore, we paid bounties for many of those handed over. There are accusations that Pakistanis apprehended suspects with little reason other than to earn the bounty.

I've said it over and over again, and I'll say it again: the only way any prisoner should leave Gitmo is in a body bag. This is war; if it's legitimate to shoot these people on the battlefield, it's legitimate to put them in front of a firing squad. 'Fair trials' for terrorists cost American lives.


And you would have no problem with CIA field agents or covert ops teams meeting a similar fate?

ah, now it begins-they are only there because we paid bounties or they were pulled in by rival tribesmen. yet, we only have a few hundred detainees there, not the tens or hundreds of thousands we should have under the bounty nonsense. would going there radicalize him-I'll go out on a limb and say no, he was a black hearted evil human being before, during and definitely after his stay. If you can find that example of the innocent waif, pure as a flower, sent to Gitmo who came out a raving jihadist lunatic, it might be worth crediting. You don't have any such examples.

ejo - do you agree with ithaqua that we should have just shot these people when they were first turned over to us?

nope, I think detaining them works, although I don't think summary trials and a firing squad work any great injustice. releasing them certainly didn't in this case-you can direct your apologies to the families of those this "innocent goatherd unjustly detained" murdered.

hopefully, they did a little better job in vetting the releasees than they did in this case. I would suspect incompetence and a desire to please the press more than treason. of course, none of my family members have been killed by the innocents released-they might feel differently.

Call me crazy, I thought we were somehow morally superior to our foes.

Professor Adler is prescient:

What does this prove? Nothing really, but I'm sure partisans in the debate over Guantanamo and the treatment and detention of alleged enemy combatants will see this as evidence that confirms their respective points of view.

Surprisingly enough, this thread confirms Professor Adler's hypothesis.

And you would have no problem with CIA field agents or covert ops teams meeting a similar fate?

ERH, are you really that naive?

Check the wikipedia entries on William Buckley, the CIA Station Chief in Beiruit, Lebanon, who was kidnapped in 1984 by Hezbollah, and Aziz al-Abub, the chief interrogator who was positively identified as being involved. After over 400 days, Buckley died. The Widipedia entry on al-Abub includes:

Aziz al-Abub used drugs and physical torture on hostage William Buckley over a period of 444 days during his captivity in Beirut.

The torture also included severe, repeated beatings. See Martin, David C. and Walcott, John, "Best Laid Plans: The Inside Story of America's War Against Terrorism," at 00. 154-55 &233 (Harper &Row 1988). There are also unconfirmed reports that during the time he was held that Buckley was first taken to Damascus, Syria, for interrogation by Syrian security forces, and then to Teheran, Iran, for interrogation by Iranian government or Revolutionary Guards personnel. Since Buckley's remains were not recovered until years later, and by then was only a skeleton, his actual cause of death and place of death are unknown.

Daniel Pearl was summarily executed, by beheading, because his kidnappers believed that he had to be a CIA agent. They could not understand why an American journalist, who was Jewish, would otherwise want to contact Islamic terrorists.

Neither of these examples, or other similar ones, has anything to do with Gitmo. Given the extended torture and execution methods that have been used, summary execution by firing squad would be a considerable step up in terms of humane treatment shown by Jihadists.

And, as far as detention in Gitmo somehow radicalized Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, remember that after he was released in Kuiwait, he went to Iraq and killed himself killing and wounding Iraqis (mainly civilians). The assertion is absurd, unless you believe that "I'm a Muslim angry at the infidel US and it's detaining me, so I'll go to a neighboring Muslim country and kill innocent Muslims as my revenge against the US." That doesn't even pass the smell test.

wfjag: my assertion isn't that it doesn't happen but rather that such behavior is ok.

You don't see revolutionary fighters from anywhere except Moslem populations becoming suicide bombers.

You've never heard of the Tamil Tigers?

why wouldn't it be a big deal? if it had happened only this time, it might be evidence of nothing. we have had many such examples of those "cleared" returning to battle and killing. It points out both the imperfection of our vetting process and the ignorance of returning detainees to war.

Naively, you'd think suicide bombers would be a wasting asset.

And that's true for every human institution but one.

@ithaqua:

I've said it over and over again, and I'll say it again: the only way any prisoner should leave Gitmo is in a body bag. This is war; if it's legitimate to shoot these people on the battlefield, it's legitimate to put them in front of a firing squad. 'Fair trials' for terrorists cost American lives.

To be clear: you're perfectly ok with US POW's being summarily executed upon capture? After all, it is legitimate for the enemy to shoot at US servicement on the battlefield.

Pol, read Ithaqua's statement more carefully. He said that if it's OK to kill someone on the battlefield. That rules out spies and saboteurs behind enemy lines, and rules in lawful combatants including self-organized inhabitants of invaded territory. He most certainly did suggest that any sort of captive could be shot.

I wonder how many defenders of Gitmo on this thread would be radicalized if tortured for years in an Egyptian prison and then released? Do you think any would be so angry as to become anti-Egyptian terrorists? (Well, considering the way the Bush/Cheney remnant prefer their violence vicariously, probably not, but the point stands.)

Were German soldiers that we captured "radicalized" by detention or were they on the other side and, using common sense, we didn't think it would be a good idea to return them to the battlefield? why is it so difficult to conceive of the simple fact that these folks are psychopaths? you see jihadists and islamic radicals killing people in all countries where they crop up-are they all innocents who have been released from Gitmo. what about the ones doing the killing before Gitmo existed-were they anticipating it?

There are a limited number of choices about that to do with captured jihadis. We can execute them summarily, which the GC allows. We can indefinitely imprison them. We can imprison them for the duration of hostilities (whatever that means), we can try them in a criminal trial. The problem with the latter approach, which all good left-wingers love so much, is that these are not necessarily criminal situations with police and evidence. So, what else do we do? Let them go?

I don't have a good answer for this, but I don't think any of the critics have a good one either. This is not CSI and our soldiers are not detectives. If we start just letting these folks go, we'll see a lot more cases of soldiers blowing the enemies heads off when they try to surrender. That will cost us a lot of intel. It may cost of the sanity of some good soldiers who have trouble living with the choice. I have less sympathy for the enemy, I suppose - they want to die, after all.

We can execute them summarily, which the GC allows.

Where, exactly, does the GC allow summary executions?

For starters--Common Article 3 explicitly says "the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" are prohibited.

Do people even try to read the Geneva Convetions before making broad sweeping pronouncements about them?

Lazarus:
You're clearly mistaken here, waterboarding isn't torture, its just boys being boys or something. The US doesn't torture people, so if the US is doing something, it is by definition, not torture. This remains true even if it used to be considered torture, even by the US, before the US started doing it.

I like that the US is at fault regardless of whether we let a terrorist go free or created one. That's spiffy.

Also, we're not at "war" with anyone. You can't have a war on an idea. We're no more at war with terrorism than we are with poverty or AIDS or crime or illegal immigration. In fact our 'war on drugs' directly assists the enemy in our 'war on terrorism'. If you want to liken it to a war, metaphorically, that's fine. Just don't act like we're actually "in a time of war" as some are saying. We're not. While Iraq was a war, for about a week or so, once Baghdad fell and Saddam was out, the war was over. Just because we still have troops there and just because they're still in danger doesn't mean we're still at war in Iraq.

If we are at "war" with terrorism, it is a never-ending war. Think about it. If we win, and have a ticker-tape parade to celebrate our victory in the war on terrorism, will there be anti-terrorism precautions taken at that massive parade? Of course. Thus, the paradox of perpetual war. It's actually not a paradox at all, because there is no war. It's a slogan, nothing more.

"I wonder how many defenders of Gitmo on this thread would be radicalized if tortured for years in an Egyptian prison and then released? Do you think any would be so angry as to become anti-Egyptian terrorists?"

That's why John McCain wants to be President. It is obvious that when he gets his finger on the nuclear button, he is going to vaporize North Vietnam.

This war is at stalemate because while we have the means to destroy the enemy, we lack the will. The enemy has the will, but lacks the means, and this war will remain at stalemate until one side of that equation comes out of balance. I fear it will mean massive loss of American life, possibly to one of these "radicalized innocents" before we get the will.

If only we had Alexander the Great or Gaius Julius Caesar as POTUS.

elim: we could have dropped the bomb in (well, above) the ocean so japan could have seen it, with the message that "there is more where that came from, and next time it will be on one of your cities" and I think it would have had the same effect, without killing civilians.

That being said, if the Japanese were fighting due to religion and a desire to kill infidels, rather than mere national identity and desires for expansion (japan has little natural resources), I'd have absolutely no qualms about having nuked the crap out of them. Nuking religious fundamentalists is perfectly acceptable. It's a gift to mankind, not a warcrime. If we had any sense we'd nuke the entire middle east (yes, Israel too), destroying every holy brick and holy rock and holy wall and holy temple and holy mound - and holy person - while making it so radioactive nobody could go there for a thousand years without making themselves an instant martyr.

And then we'd have peace.

Nice to see Adler memorialized at Best of the Web!