Hot Air. Enough said.

Dick Cheney?

FTA:

During a hearing in Guantanamo in October 2004, Zuhair was accused of involvement in the 1995 killing in Bosnia-Herzegovina of William Jefferson, a U.S. official with the United Nations. At the tribunal, U.S. officials said Jefferson's watch was found on Zuhair.

Accused. Accused. That doesn't mean guilty, you ignorant asshats.

Hender: Accused. Accused. That doesn't mean guilty, you ignorant asshats.

At any rate, a terrorism rehabilitation camp in Saudi is no picnic, so subby should suck his foot.

Got any uncompromised proof of his guilt? Oh, right, according to Hot Air, everyone at Gitmo must be a terrorist, or else they wouldn't have been there.

thamike: Hender: Accused. Accused. That doesn't mean guilty, you ignorant asshats.

At any rate, a terrorism rehabilitation camp in Saudi is no picnic, so subby should suck his foot.

I've actually heard some stories about them on the BBC. They sound really interesting, and they actually have a fairly high success rate, or at least, higher than you might think. It's not quite as scary as it sounds. They have high-profile and respected Imams essentially re-teaching the Koran to those detained there, as well as having former members of extremist groups teach a combination of Scared Straight and how they'd been deceived by their former compatriots.

Hender: I've actually heard some stories about them on the BBC. They sound really interesting, and they actually have a fairly high success rate, or at least, higher than you might think. It's not quite as scary as it sounds. They have high-profile and respected Imams essentially re-teaching the Koran to those detained there, as well as having former members of extremist groups teach a combination of Scared Straight and how they'd been deceived by their former compatriots.

I'm all for it. My point was that subby was following the same bs violent rhetoric that isn't helping anybody.

Still, the camps are no picnic.

thamike: Still, the camps are no picnic.

Actually, every other Saturday afternoon...

Hender: FTA:

During a hearing in Guantanamo in October 2004, Zuhair was accused of involvement in the 1995 killing in Bosnia-Herzegovina of William Jefferson, a U.S. official with the United Nations. At the tribunal, U.S. officials said Jefferson's watch was found on Zuhair.

Accused. Accused. That doesn't mean guilty, you ignorant asshats.

So if he is convicted then you would be against his release?

hmmm, well then, the very next sentence FTA, which you naturally declined to include in your post: "Zuhair also was convicted in absentia by a Bosnian court in a 1997 car bombing in the town of Mostar."

thamike: Hot Air. Enough said.

so if it was from a liberal news source then it would be credible?

gee, the source of the Hot Air article:
LA Times for libtards

Doublek111: Hender: FTA:

During a hearing in Guantanamo in October 2004, Zuhair was accused of involvement in the 1995 killing in Bosnia-Herzegovina of William Jefferson, a U.S. official with the United Nations. At the tribunal, U.S. officials said Jefferson's watch was found on Zuhair.

Accused. Accused. That doesn't mean guilty, you ignorant asshats.

So if he is convicted then you would be against his release?

hmmm, well then, the very next sentence FTA, which you naturally declined to include in your post: "Zuhair also was convicted in absentia by a Bosnian court in a 1997 car bombing in the town of Mostar."

I'd have to see more about that, specifically. Didn't Iraq try and convict our President in absentia, too? Clearly he must have been guilty.

Doublek111: so if it was from a liberal news source then it would be credible?

No. It's not credible because it is emotionally slanted.
Just like the headline. This is not a political lefty/righty situation.

/The guy is no more "guilty as sin" as he is "free as a bird."

thamike: Doublek111: so if it was from a liberal news source then it would be credible?

No. It's not credible because it is emotionally slanted.
Just like the headline. This is not a political lefty/righty situation.

/The guy is no more "guilty as sin" as he is "free as a bird."


You really should think about something before you write it and perhaps also read the articles of which you are commenting on. Saying he is no more guilty as sin as he is free as a bird is in fact saying he is guilty as sin because, you see, he is free as a bird. that is the point of the article. Just a suggestion.

plus, if you read through to the LA times article, the headline is not a all emotionally slanted and quite quite factual.

here, I'll even get you started on it:
Europeans balk at taking Guantanamo inmates for unwilling U.S.
U.S. officials trying to relocate detainees face skepticism from EU nations, who want to know why the U.S. can't taken them itself if they pose no risk.

Doublek111: You really should think about something before you write it and perhaps also read the articles of which you are commenting on. Saying he is no more guilty as sin as he is free as a bird is in fact saying he is guilty as sin because, you see, he is free as a bird. that is the point of the article. Just a suggestion.

Except he's not "free as a bird." The Saudi extremist rehabilitation camps aren't exactly like summer camp. It's not as bad as prison, but he's gonna be there for awhile while as he's deprogrammed.

Doublek111: You really should think about something before you write it and perhaps also read the articles of which you are commenting on.

I could say that about your LA Times link.

And what does an in absentia conviction in Bosnia have to do with the allegations made by the USA? We are to accept an in absentia conviction by a Bosnian court as proof of guilt for a different alleged crime? Really?

Doublek111: hmmm, well then, the very next sentence FTA, which you naturally declined to include in your post: "Zuhair also was convicted in absentia by a Bosnian court in a 1997 car bombing in the town of Mostar."

So... he was convicted of a separate crime.

Congratulations, your follow-up proves nothing.

/hey, where there's smoke, there's fire, amirite?

Doublek111: You really should think about something before you write it and perhaps also read the articles of which you are commenting on. Saying he is no more guilty as sin as he is free as a bird is in fact saying he is guilty as sin because, you see, he is free as a bird. that is the point of the article. Just a suggestion.

One can say the same of you, apparently. He's been relocated to a Saudi camp. He's still in custody. Perhaps you should avoid the pitfall of assumed propriety when you argue about international events. Just a suggestion.

Doublek111: here, I'll even get you started on it:
Europeans balk at taking Guantanamo inmates for unwilling U.S.
U.S. officials trying to relocate detainees face skepticism from EU nations, who want to know why the U.S. can't taken them itself if they pose no risk.

Here's another comment you really need to reread before you kick yourself in the ass.

I'm much more bothered by us handing over prisoners to the Saudi government, under any conditions, than I am by Obama's supposed leniency.

Here's an idea. Remember this guy's name. I'm sure we'll all be hearing it again at some point. Then remember who set him loose.

thamike: Hender: I've actually heard some stories about them on the BBC. They sound really interesting, and they actually have a fairly high success rate, or at least, higher than you might think. It's not quite as scary as it sounds. They have high-profile and respected Imams essentially re-teaching the Koran to those detained there, as well as having former members of extremist groups teach a combination of Scared Straight and how they'd been deceived by their former compatriots.

I'm all for it. My point was that subby was following the same bs violent rhetoric that isn't helping anybody.

Still, the camps are no picnic.

Some of them have picnics. (new window)

Photo 4 they are are painting for therapy, photo 5 is the picnic. They're having a nighttime picnic on photo 15.

Jihad Rehab Camp (new window)

But no, most are worse. No macaroni salad for the picnic, and electric shocks.

Brubold: Here's an idea. Remember this guy's name. I'm sure we'll all be hearing it again at some point. Then remember who set him loose.


Bush did, by torturing people instead of gathering evidence that can actually stand up to any kind of a trial by jury or courts martial.

/trolling, i can do it too!

rehabilitation by bullet.
Cheapest way to go.

FTTimes Article: U.S. officials trying to relocate detainees face skepticism from EU nations, who want to know why the U.S. can't taken them itself if they pose no risk.

Seriously?


Also, I think this is a key sentence that the Hot Air people ignored:
The detainees were sent back to Saudi Arabia, their home country, where officials will review their cases before sending them to a rehabilitation program.

I'd imagine if Zuhair is truly as super evil as Hot Air makes him out to be, then the Saudis won't be letting him out anytime soon.

Finally, as others have stated, even if he was just put into a rehabilitation camp, that is hardly "free as a bird". I would venture to say that it's "free as a dude who just got moved from one prison to another."

torquestripe: rehabilitation by bullet.
Cheapest way to go.

Yeah!! We don't need no stinkin' trials! Courtrooms and evidence and juries and justice are for the weak!!1!

torquestripe: rehabilitation by bullet.
Cheapest way to go.

Well, not exactly. If I was a member of the family of William Jefferson, I'd go to Saudi Arabia, ask about the evidence reportedly discovered concerning William Jefferson's property being found on the accused at the time of his arrest, ask the Saudis to convict the man of murder on the basis of that evidence, and ask them to allow the family to execute him publicly, as Saudi Arabia gives families that right.

Perhaps it wouldn't work for whatever reason, but if I was a family member so motivated, I would certainly _try_. You couldn't do that while the accused was in Gitmo.

So, not by bullet but if things go right, by the sword. They lay down plastic before hand, so it's an easy clean up.

Ted Stevens?

Lionel Mandrake: torquestripe: rehabilitation by bullet.
Cheapest way to go.

Yeah!! We don't need no stinkin' trials! Courtrooms and evidence and juries and justice are for the weak!!1!

Jihadist have no problem killing innocents. We should have no problems killing captured Jihadists without a trial.
Do you understand how this works?
Good, now go back outside with the rest of the kids and play in the street.

torquestripe: Lionel Mandrake: torquestripe: rehabilitation by bullet.
Cheapest way to go.

Yeah!! We don't need no stinkin' trials! Courtrooms and evidence and juries and justice are for the weak!!1!

Jihadist have no problem killing innocents. We should have no problems killing captured Jihadists without a trial.
Do you understand how this works?
Good, now go back outside with the rest of the kids and play in the street.

If you're so sure they are guilty, why do you balk at giving them a trial?

Do you understand how justice works?

Hender: FTA:

During a hearing in Guantanamo in October 2004, Zuhair was accused of involvement in the 1995 killing in Bosnia-Herzegovina of William Jefferson, a U.S. official with the United Nations. At the tribunal, U.S. officials said Jefferson's watch was found on Zuhair.

Accused. Accused. That doesn't mean guilty, you ignorant asshats.

"Accused" means he has to be treated legally nebulous as to guilt or innocence. That doesn't mean he's innocent outright. Only that a court, in trial, has to treat him as innocent. This isn't a courtroom. This is a messageboard talking about a suspect's release.

Put it to you this way, if Timothy McVeigh and James Earl Ray had never been brought to trial (let's say they died beforehand) would you be demanding they be called "accused" whenever they were mentioned?

If you think the guy is innocent then tell us how he got the dead guys watch?

Mrbogey: "Accused" means he has to be treated legally nebulous as to guilt or innocence. That doesn't mean he's innocent outright. Only that a court, in trial, has to treat him as innocent. This isn't a courtroom. This is a messageboard talking about a suspect's release.

If it doesn't make him innocent, it sure doesn't make him "guilty as sin."

Mrbogey: Put it to you this way, if Timothy McVeigh and James Earl Ray had never been brought to trial (let's say they died beforehand) would you be demanding they be called "accused" whenever they were mentioned?

Yes. It's widely thought that Sid Vicious was guilty of murder, but that he died before he could be arrested and tried means that forever after he'll just be a suspect.

Mrbogey: If you think the guy is innocent then tell us how he got the dead guys watch?

Bought it off someone? How is his possession of the watch iron-clad proof that he committed the crime? You really couldn't imagine another scenario in which he acquired the watch?

God, I hope you're not a lawyer.

Hender: If it doesn't make him innocent, it sure doesn't make him "guilty as sin."

Review the evidence.

The guy is guilty of involvement (at the very least) in the Jefferson murder.

Lionel Mandrake: Bought it off someone? How is his possession of the watch iron-clad proof that he committed the crime? You really couldn't imagine another scenario in which he acquired the watch?

God, I hope you're not a lawyer.

Oh I can imagine other scenarios. None that matter in a military court. When you have the motive and you're caught with a dead guy's stuff... you're going to have to do a lot of explaining to get out of that.

Brubold: Here's an idea. Remember this guy's name. I'm sure we'll all be hearing it again at some point. Then remember who set him loose.

your guy let hundreds loose from gitmo. what's your point?

But honestly, who in Bosnia didn't kill someone in 1995?

/ja nisam

FlashHarry: Brubold: Here's an idea. Remember this guy's name. I'm sure we'll all be hearing it again at some point. Then remember who set him loose.

your guy let hundreds loose from gitmo. what's your point?

Yeah, and I heard 61 of them are back on the battlefield!!1! Why did W do that? Why did he release terrorists to kill our heroes?

torquestripe: Lionel Mandrake: torquestripe: rehabilitation by bullet.
Cheapest way to go.

Yeah!! We don't need no stinkin' trials! Courtrooms and evidence and juries and justice are for the weak!!1!

Jihadist have no problem killing innocents. We should have no problems killing captured Jihadists without a trial.
Do you understand how this works?
Good, now go back outside with the rest of the kids and play in the street.

Yeah, that's awesome--the way we can prove the rightness of our values and our superiority as a nation is to just farking chuck them out the window and do whatever the hell our enemies do. That'll be real farking effective, and won't make any more enemies for us along the way. Boy howdy, you just solved all our farking problems right there. Hot damn!

The founding fathers would like a word with you...or maybe Jesus and his golden rule...better yet, relocate to Iran--I think you'll enjoy the climate there much more, and you'll certainly get along with the "kids" in those streets.

Lionel Mandrake: FlashHarry: Brubold: Here's an idea. Remember this guy's name. I'm sure we'll all be hearing it again at some point. Then remember who set him loose.

your guy let hundreds loose from gitmo. what's your point?

Yeah, and I heard 61 of them are back on the battlefield!!1! Why did W do that? Why did he release terrorists to kill our heroes?

my main confusion is that W and rummy told us that all 700+ were "the worst of the worst" and were soooo dangerous that they not only couldn't be released - they couldn't even stand trial! now several hundred have been released. what gives? bush is infallible, yet he made a mistake. i'm about to implode due to an infinite logic loop like star trek's "nomad" probe!

If an American were caught involved in terrorist activities in another country, I would think most people would want him returned to us to deal with.

torquestripe: Jihadist have no problem killing innocents. We should have no problems killing captured Jihadists without a trial.
Do you understand how this works?

For you, it apparantly works like this:

The people we're fighting are bad.
Clearly, we should be as bad as them.
Alternately, we should be only a tiny bit better than them, that way we can claim to keep the moral high ground while still getting to be monsters.

They cut and burn. We beat and fake-drown. We're soooo much better.

They behead without a trial, we shoot without a trial (or rather, you'd have us shoot without a trial). We're soooo much better.

They assume all Americans are bad, you assume all the sad saps we grabbed in the desert (many of whom on spurious "charges" and with little to no evidence) are bad. We're soooo much better.

Justice does not weaken us. Due process does not weaken us. Being so petrified of some violent fanatics in the middle east that we're willing to throw away the very principles, ideals, and laws that make us genuinely morally superior? That farking well weakens us.

Mrbogey: Hender: If it doesn't make him innocent, it sure doesn't make him "guilty as sin."

Review the evidence.

The guy is guilty of involvement (at the very least) in the Jefferson murder.

Look, I'm not defending the guy, but there's a huge difference between being accused of something and being convicted of something. In the eyes of the law, you're not guilty of something until you're convicted of something. This guy was not convicted of anything except in a trial in absentia in another country, which doesn't really amount to a hill of beans either for us or even in general.

FTA:

At the tribunal, U.S. officials said Jefferson's watch was found on Zuhair.

That's we like to call "circumstantial evidence" here in the US.

Again, I'm not defending the guy or saying he's innocent, but I object to the constant characterizations from some people--mainly on the right--that everyone being held in Guantanamo is guilty ("guilty as sin" in this case), when technically they can't be guilty because they've never been put on trial. The fact of the matter is that no one--especially not the Hot Air article author--knows dick about whether he's innocent or guilty of anything, and demonizing him serves no purpose.

GhostFish: If an American were caught involved in terrorist activities in another country, I would think most people would want him returned to us to deal with.

Like those two reporters in North Korea

/See Trolling is fun
//What I'm not supposed to mention I'm trolling?

Lionel Mandrake: God, I hope you're not a lawyer.

Now hold on a second. Depending on what you're guilty of, he could be an excellent lawyer. Provided he was your attorney.

Hender: That's we like to call "circumstantial evidence" here in the US.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Pay attention to the last sentence of the first paragraph. Circumstantial evidence doesn't outright mean "no evidence". With the right place and setting it can be pretty damning.

In this case, looking at his history, it's clear he was part of the group that killed the guy. As far as terrorism, I file it under the same legal moralism as RICO.

And like I said, this is a messageboard. It's not the courtroom. We don't have to assume he's innocent.

Mrbogey: Hender: That's we like to call "circumstantial evidence" here in the US.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Pay attention to the last sentence of the first paragraph. Circumstantial evidence doesn't outright mean "no evidence". With the right place and setting it can be pretty damning.

In this case, looking at his history, it's clear he was part of the group that killed the guy. As far as terrorism, I file it under the same legal moralism as RICO.

And like I said, this is a messageboard. It's not the courtroom. We don't have to assume he's innocent.

What "evidence" are you talking about? Where are you getting his history other than a paragraph in a news story? Nothing's clear in those two lines about the guy. You're not even jumping to conclusions--you're leaping tall conclusions with a single bound.

Mrbogey: "Accused" means he has to be treated legally nebulous as to guilt or innocence. That doesn't mean he's innocent outright.

Yeah, it's so obvious, don't these people know our legal system is based on "Innocent until accused"?

No wait, that's "innocent until proven guilty." Which means that what you said is absolute bullshiat.

Hender: What "evidence" are you talking about? Where are you getting his history other than a paragraph in a news story?

Uhhh...my browser has a plug-in that let's me pull up all the news I want by typing a search term in a small box. In a few seconds I can get anything that was ever printed about the guy from the world over.

His involvement with terror groups didn't come from the ether.

RemyDuron: No wait, that's "innocent until proven guilty." Which means that what you said is absolute bullshiat.

So why do you think he's innocent. The only outrage over this is he wasn't given a tribunal ages ago.

Mrbogey: . The only outrage over this is he wasn't given a tribunal ages ago.

Yes. Exactly. Although I would prefer a criminal trial over a military tribunal, seeing as how terrorism is supposedly a criminal act.

/Bush gave legitimacy to an entire generation of idiots that could have been marginalized by special operations.
//Clinton's not free and clear either.

Fark greenlights the dumbest shiat lately.

I thought Guantanamo was a picnic prison, where everyone gets to read their Koran? But at the same time, it's worse than being in a Saudi Arabian prison for terrorists? Gee...