Guantanamo bay

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

They have a legitimate fear of terrorism.
They brought in measures to deal with it.
Good for them,VERY bad for the people skulking around with the taliban when they were rounded up.
Didnt Sister mary tell you that you judge people by the company they keep?

Internment in the North was a great idea too..........oh wait!

Morlar

wes wrote: »

I am not being naive to take what the US claims with a pinch of salt. I would say anyone who believe them are the naive ones.

Are you saying you do not believe the above profiles of former detainees ? Bearing in mind those were just the ones deemed to be lower risk and so given an earlier release.

In any event why should Ireland take that gamble ? These people are not our moral, financial or legal responsibility. There is at the very least good reason to be very wary (going not least by the above report profiling former 'low-risk' detainees post release activities). I think you are the one being naive here.

walshb

wes wrote: »

I am not being naive to take what the US claims with a pinch of salt. I would say anyone who believe them are the naive ones.



There is no proof they are ists, if there was they would have been tried. until proven otherwise. Its a simple system that applies to everyone.

Ok Wes, let's be realistic here. I am not saying that that the US got it right with all these detainess, nor am I saying that US intelligence is always right; it is not. But it is also not always wrong. We have to rely on some form of
intelligence from some agency.
Now, to be told that we should 'keep an eye' on these people is IMO enough of a damn threat and scare.

So, do we simply wait and HOPE that some of these detainees don't go and blow themselves up in a restaurant or public place. What are you looking for.

I agree with you that the US may well have got it wrong in many cases; but there are many in the 'bay' that are legitimate threats to humanity. Now, do we sit back and HOPE that the ones who arrive here will be peaceful.

I say 'air on the side of caution' for this one, and as good or bad that the US
sources may be; damn right I will trust them over a bunch of Guantanamo detainees. I will not take the risk that the US did indeed get it right with
these people; and that they were indeed threats.

I don't get you; you agree the US should deal with it and you don't seem to
think that any of these detainees is in Guantanamo for a reason.

They aren't simply there because of the color of their skin or their
nationality. It's a little more than that. Remember, it was America who had
jumbo jets flown into their buildings, it was American air hostesses who had
their throats slit on flights. And we are lecturing the US on Guantanamo bay:rolleyes:

Degsy

Seanies32 wrote: »

Internment in the North was a great idea too..........oh wait!

It'd be a good idea down here too.
Take the scum off the streets.

walshb

Morlar wrote: »

Are you saying you do not believe the above profiles of former detainees ? Bearing in mind those were just the ones deemed to be lower risk and so given an earlier release.

In any event why should Ireland take that gamble ? These people are not our moral, financial or legal responsibility. There is at the very least good reason to be very wary (going not least by the above report profiling former 'low-risk' detainees post release activities). I think you are the one being naive here.

The only proof Wes will rely on is when these detainees actually commit a ist act on our shores. He is waiting on d e a t h s before he wakes up.

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

It'd be a good idea down here too.
Take the scum off the streets.

It would, if there is proper intelligence.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

Are you saying you do not believe the above profiles of former detainees ? Bearing in mind those were just the ones deemed to be lower risk and so given an earlier release.

What I am saying is that they US are exagerating.

Morlar wrote: »

In any event why should Ireland take that gamble ? These people are not our moral, financial or legal responsibility. There is at the very least good reason to be very wary (going not least by the above report profiling former 'low-risk' detainees post release activities). I think you are the one being naive here.

I never said we should take them in. It the USA's mess and they should fix it.

Also, taking what the US says as fact, seem pretty naive to me.

wes

walshb wrote: »

Ok Wes, let's be realistic here. I am not saying that that the US got it right with all these detainess, nor am I saying that US intelligence is always right; it is not. But it is also not always wrong. We have to rely on some form of
intelligence from some agency.
Now, to be told that we should 'keep an eye' on these people is IMO enough of a damn threat and scare.

No, it isn't the US are hardly above fear mongering.

walshb wrote: »

So, do we simply wait and HOPE that some of these detainees don't go and blow themselves up in a restaurant or public place. What are you looking for.

How do we know anyone hear might not go on a rampage and kill a bunch of people?

walshb wrote: »

I agree with you that the US may well have got it wrong in many cases; but there are many in the 'bay' that are legitimate threats to humanity. Now, do we sit back and HOPE that the ones who arrive here will be peaceful.

I never said we should take them in. In fact I have said the opposite several times.

walshb wrote: »

I say 'air on the side of caution' for this one, and as good or bad that the US
sources may be; damn right I will trust them over a bunch of Guantanamo detainees. I will not take the risk that the US did indeed get it right with
these people; and that they were indeed threats.

These people are innocent until proven otherwise. Its up for the US to prove there guilt and not up to the people who were kidnapped to prove them wrong.

walshb wrote: »

I don't get you; you agree the US should deal with it and you don't seem to
think that any of these detainees is in Guantanamo for a reason.

I think they deserve a fair trial. Until they get one, I presume innocence.

I don't doubt they actually caught some terrorists. If you round up enough people, your bound to get it right eventually.

walshb wrote: »

They aren't simply there because of the color of their skin or their
nationality. It's a little more than that. Remember, it was America who had
jumbo jets flown into their buildings, it was American air hostesses who had
their throats slit on flights. And we are lecturing the US on Guantanamo bay:rolleyes:

They are there, because the US kidnapped them.

You need to remember the illegal war of aggression against Iraq, in which the US killed far more people than were murdered on 9/11. So I will lecture the US all I want, the have commited plenty of crimes the world over.

wes

walshb wrote: »

The only proof Wes will rely on is when these detainees actually commit a ist act on our shores. He is waiting on d e a t h s before he wakes up.

Anyone could go on a murderous rampage. I have no proof no one here will go on a murderour rampage, so should we assume someone will?

walshb

wes wrote: »

Anyone could go on a ous rampage. I have no proof no one here will go on a our rampage, so should we assume someone will?

Wes, you say anyone could go on a m u r d e r o u s rampage, Yeah, what's new; but surely you can come up with better than that. I could apply that any time in any situation. Weak and very weak IMO.

My view is simple; if any doubt or suspicion in a situation like this; air on the side of caution. That's all. Most in the 'bay' are there for a reason, despite
now being set free without trial. This is a whole new world now; and special circumstances applied after 9/11; special circumstances were called for and needed to protect life. New measures were brought in to deal with new types of t e r r o r i s t s. Like I said, US soil was attacked; not Irish soil.

The US have provided inacurate info and accurate info; now are you simply going to ignore every bit of info just because these guys didn't stand trial.

Many many dangeorus and KNOWN criminals are walking the streets
today who haven't faced trial and who are known to the cops. Does that mean we should simply let the guard down. What about criminals entering this country, or would be criminals. Do we adopt your attitude and WAIT
for something terrible to happen; because Oh, they haven't had a trial and until proven guilty...:rolleyes:

Simple question; do you believe we shouldn't take them for security reasons as well as why you have said we shouldn't take them. Do you think we have legitimate and real security concerns here

twinytwo

wes wrote: »

Anyone could go on a murderous rampage. I have no proof no one here will go on a murderour rampage, so should we assume someone will?

better to be safe than sorry

wes

walshb wrote: »

Wes, you say anyone could go on a m u r d e r o u s rampage, Yeah, what's new; but surely you can come up with better than that. I could apply that any time in any situation. Weak and very weak IMO.

No it isn't. That what your saying. Anyone is capable of killing people, so everyone should be suspect.

walshb wrote: »

My view is simple; if any doubt or suspicion in a situation like this; air on the side of caution. That's all. Most in the 'bay' are there for a reason, despite
now being set free without trial. This is a whole new world now; and special circumstances applied after 9/11; special circumstances were called for and needed to protect life. New measures were brought in to deal with new types of t e r r o r i s t s. Like I said, US soil was attacked; not Irish soil.

No, its not a whole new world. The US have killed a lot more people than were killed during 9/11. So stop pretending the innocent flower children.

walshb wrote: »

The US have provided inacurate info and accurate info; now are you simply going to ignore every bit of info just because these guys didn't stand trial.

There innocent until proven otherwise. They need to prove there guilt, I don't have to prove there innocence.

walshb wrote: »

Many many dangeorus and KNOWN criminals are walking the streets
today who haven't faced trial and who are known to the cops. Does that mean we should simply let the guard down. What about criminals entering this country, or would be criminals. Do we adopt your attitude and WAIT
for something terrible to happen; because Oh, they haven't had a trial and until proven guilty...:rolleyes:

Maybe we should live in police state then. That way undesirable can be locked up right quick.

walshb wrote: »

Simple question; do you believe we shouldn't take them for security reasons as well as why you have said we shouldn't take them. Do you think we have legitimate and real security concerns here

I have already made myself clear on this several times. The US made the mess, the need to clear it up. Nothing more than that.

As for security, unless there is credible evidence they are dangerous, then I see no reason to be worried.

wes

twinytwo wrote: »

better to be safe than sorry

Then we should arrest all adult males, as they commit most crimes. Better safe than sorry, as you say.

twinytwo

wes wrote: »

Then we should arrest all adult males, as they commit most crimes. Better safe than sorry, as you say.

completely irrelevant

wes

twinytwo wrote: »

completely irrelevant

No, its plenty relevant. Adult males commit most crimes. So they could commit a crime, so lets lock them up.

Better safe than sorry as you say!!!

twinytwo

wes wrote: »

No, its plenty relevant. Adult males commit most crimes. So they could commit a crime, so lets lock them up.

Better safe than sorry as you say!!!

Plenty relevant??... we are talking about people that have the potential to blow themselves/.. hardly everyday adult males:rolleyes:. Now before you carry off on some rant about how they are innocent etc etc... it is not these people that we have to worry about but their kids as they will owe this country nothing.. it will end up the exact same way it is in britian.

Besides money is leaking out of this country faster than rats off a sinking ship... Whos job etc would you like to give them??... willing to give up your are you???

RichTea

Dermot Ahern says take them here, sure why not!?

They should be moved to prisons in the United States. Keep the exact locations of each prisoner a secret and try them in a court of law. It's the only way to do it.

wes

twinytwo wrote: »

Plenty relevant??... we are talking about people that have the potential to blow themselves/.. hardly everyday adult males:rolleyes:. Now before you carry off on some rant about how they are innocent etc etc... it is not these people that we have to worry about but their kids as they will owe this country nothing.. it will end up the exact same way it is in britian.

Did you notice, those people are adult males. Also, take a look at our prisons, most criminals, are adult males. So we should lock them all up. Don't you want to be safe?!?

Also, do you really think that we are accepting a million people in or something? Also, I don't think we should take them in, in anyways.

Also, what there children may or may not do, doesn't matter, as you can't possibly tell the future.

twinytwo wrote: »

Besides money is leaking out of this country faster than rats off a sinking ship... Whos job etc would you like to give them??... willing to give up your are you???

I never said we should take them. I have said the opposite it several times. Its the US's mess, they should fix it.

Degsy

Seanies32 wrote: »

It would, if there is proper intelligence.

And there is so game on.

anonymous_joe

Some of them were probably terrorists. They were after all mainly captured in very dangerous areas, so when they're sent home it's quite possible their former comrades would assume they've squealed and do what's traditional to squealers everywhere. (And being Afghanistan, that's not something you'd wish on anyone.)

Anyway, gives them a chance of a real life now. What;s the problem?

walshb

Wes, I really would love to have your optimism.
Bottom line is that any person that is told
that a possible felon or terrorsist will move next door to them
will rightly be concerned and won't be thinking, "Ah well, innocent
until proven guilty." And they ceertainly won't be sitting
all comfy until that person goes on trial:rolleyes:

I know full well that (innocnet until proven guilty) is a legal entitlement

But should any country want to
ship persons here who are higly suspected
of criminality, I don't believe that country should adopt
your stance and say, "Ah well, innocent until proven guilty."

We should simply say, well, we aren't prepared to take the bloody risk!
We have enough "Innocent until prove gulity" folks already here!

Where did I ever say the US didn't kill more people than those
who died on 9/11?

I never said that. I said 9/11 was a whole new ball game; unprecedented and required a whole new approach to the fight against terrorism. To say it
didn't, is inaccurate!

Anyway, that's a whole different discussion Wes.

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

And there is so game on.

What's the required IQ level?

wes

walshb wrote: »

Wes, I really would love to have your optimism.
Bottom line is that any person that is told
that a possible felon or terrorsist will move next door to them
will rightly be concerned and won't be thinking, "Ah well, innocent
until proven guilty." And they ceertainly won't be sitting
all comfy until that person goes on trial:rolleyes:

Everyone here is a potential terrorist. If you don't need proof, I can make that claim.

walshb wrote: »

I know full well that (innocnet until proven guilty) is a legal entitlement

But should any country want to
ship persons here who are higly suspected
of criminality, I don't believe that country should adopt
your stance and say, "Ah well, innocent until proven guilty."

Yeah, we should actually. If someone is innocent of any criminality, we should treat them like everyone else.

walshb wrote: »

We should simply say, well, we aren't prepared to take the bloody risk!
We have enough "Innocent until prove gulity" folks already here!

We should hardly give into childish fears.

walshb wrote: »

Where did I ever say the US didn't kill more people than those
who died on 9/11?

I was just pointing out that the US have been killing people the world over.

walshb wrote: »

I never said that. I said 9/11 was a whole new ball game; unprecedented and required a whole new approach to thew fight against terrorism. To say it
didn't, is inaccurate!

The approach has been a failure. There is no way to be safe a 100% of the time.

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, that's a whole different discussion Wes.

Then why did you bring it up?

Degsy

Seanies32 wrote: »

What's the required IQ level?

www.garda.ie

Find out yourself

twinytwo

wes wrote: »

Did you notice, those people are adult males. Also, take a look at our prisons, most criminals, are adult males. So we should lock them all up. Don't you want to be safe?!?

Also, do you really think that we are accepting a million people in or something? Also, I don't think we should take them in, in anyways.

Also, what there children may or may not do, doesn't matter, as you can't possibly tell the future.



I never said we should take them. I have said the opposite it several times. Its the US's mess, they should fix it.

One should always learn from others mistakes... no we are not accepting a million people but 2 becomes 4 becomes 6 etc. Once given asylum they are allowed to bring their familly here if they have any...All it takes is one fundementilist and we have a problem but hey if people are willing to take that chance seeing what has happened in other countries... one can argue that only a handfull of muslims are fundementilists it is true that the rest of the muslim world do nothing to stop them


funny additive
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=4Muw9crkuqQ

K-9

Degsy wrote: »

www.garda.ie

Find out yourself

That fills me with confidence.*

*Note my location.

wes

twinytwo wrote: »

One should always learn from others mistakes... no we are not accepting a million people but 2 becomes 4 becomes 6 etc. Once given asylum they are allowed to bring their familly here if they have any...All it takes is one fundementilist and we have a problem but hey if people are willing to take that chance seeing what has happened in other countries... one can argue that only a handfull of muslims are fundementilists it is true that the rest of the muslim world do nothing to stop them


funny additive
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=4Muw9crkuqQ

So you just ignored the fact that I said we shouldn't take them in.

Also, you can't predict the future, so what your saying has no bearing on anything.

Also, last I checked the Pakistani army is blowing the crap out of there tribal regions to kill fundamentalists. So there you go some Muslims fighting terrorism. So saying there doing nothing is well, just plain wrong.

twinytwo

wes wrote: »

So you just ignored the fact that I said we shouldn't take them in.

Also, you can't predict the future, so what your saying has no bearing on anything.

Also, last I checked the Pakistani army is blowing the crap out of there tribal regions to kill fundamentalists. So there you go some Muslims fighting terrorism. So saying there doing nothing is well, just plain wrong.

Oh now.... tut tut the only reason they are is because they were told to either act or america would stop all the aid that pakistan gets

walshb

wes wrote: »

Everyone here is a potential terrorist. If you don't need proof, I can make that claim.



Yeah, we should actually. If someone is innocent of any criminality, we should treat them like everyone else.

The approach has been a failure. There is no way to be safe a 100% of the time.



Then why did you bring it up?

You brought the whole US killed more people, not me!

Ok, so we are all potential terrorsits and every bit as much as the detainees,
Well, I can't argue with that claim!

If innocent until proven guilty, yes, treat them equal; and don't allow them entry and let their own country treat them as equal! I am not saying we should jail these people; just say "Okay, you're innocent, but goodbye and good luck"

wes

twinytwo wrote: »

Oh now.... tut tut the only reason they are is because they were told to either act or america would stop all the aid that pakistan gets

Now, now there democratic government don't get a cent of that, but there still going ahead with.

wes

walshb wrote: »

You brought the whole US killed more people, not me!

You brought up 9/11, so I brought up what the US does as well.

walshb wrote: »

Ok, so we are all potential terrorsits and every bit as much as the detainees,
Well, I can't argue with that claim!

Its as valid as anyone else claims here.

walshb wrote: »

If innocent until proven guilty, yes, treat them equal; and don't allow them entry and let their own country treat them as equal! I am not saying we should jail these people; just say "Okay, you're innocent, but goodbye and good luck"

I never said to let them in anyways. Its the US mess, they need to fix it not your or me or anyone else.

FlutterinBantam

Musha good lad Wes.

All those punters in Guantanimo are nice lads really ,shure they just happened to be out at 0300 in the middle of an "operation" when they were pulled in.

Now what I will do is wait until someone points a gun to my head or is caught redhanded in the middle of nowhere before I consider them a risk.

Nice one Wes, no flowers at my funeral please;)

jimmmy

Well said FlutterinBantam.

We have a lot to thank the US for. But for them we would probably be speaking German or Russian. At least with Guantanimo there has not been another major attack in America since 9/11. If there had been, and no Guantanimo , people would be asking why was security / detention centres not increased etc I think there has to be somewhere for the most extreme of the extremists caught in Iraq / Afghanistan .

ScumLord

jimmmy wrote: »

Well said FlutterinBantam.

We have a lot to thank the US for. But for them we would probably be speaking German or Russian.

Ya it would suck to be made speak a foreign language.

K-9

I presume the Brits are taking their residents back?

K-9

jimmmy wrote: »

Well said FlutterinBantam.

We have a lot to thank the US for. But for them we would probably be speaking German or Russian. At least with Guantanimo there has not been another major attack in America since 9/11. If there had been, and no Guantanimo , people would be asking why was security / detention centres not increased etc I think there has to be somewhere for the most extreme of the extremists caught in Iraq / Afghanistan .

So obviously seeing as nobody seems to want the prisoners, it has done a great job in Rehabilitation.

Anyway, have people forgotten about London, Madrid and Bali?

wes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Musha good lad Wes.

All those punters in Guantanimo are nice lads really ,shure they just happened to be out at 0300 in the middle of an "operation" when they were pulled in.

Its been clearly shown, that for a lot of them that was not the case.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Now what I will do is wait until someone points a gun to my head or is caught redhanded in the middle of nowhere before I consider them a risk.

No, they weren't all caught like that.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Nice one Wes, no flowers at my funeral please;)

Well, dieing from fright is really sad.

Morlar

Seanies32 wrote: »

I presume the Brits are taking their residents back?

They have agreed to take their own citizens back as they have no choice (the ones from say bradford or birmingham who accidentally ended up on the battlefields with the taliban etc).

They have point blank refused to take any non british born gtmo detainees (despite being war allies and so on).

wes

Seanies32 wrote: »

So obviously seeing as nobody seems to want the prisoners, it has done a great job in Rehabilitation.

Anyway, have people forgotten about London, Madrid and Bali?

Don't point out that US policies have been huge failures, that would get in the way of a good rant.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

They have agreed to take their own citizens back as they have no choice (the ones from say bradford or birmingham who accidentally ended up on the battlefields with the taliban etc).

So you choose to ignore the fact that a lot of people in Gitmo, were not found on battlefields.

K-9

wes wrote: »

Don't point out that US policies have been huge failures, that would get in the way of a good rant.

Indeed, when will Govts. learn that Internment Camps seriously backfire.

wes

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, when will Govts. learn that Internment Camps seriously backfire.

On the 20th of never, by my estimation.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

Don't point out that US policies have been huge failures, that would get in the way of a good rant.

That would be a matter of your opinion. Not all american policies are failures. Certainly far fewer than the policies of al qaida or the taliban.

Also when your deciding american policy was a failure how do you know that it was not the best of a bad choice ? And that if they had done nothing they could have made an already bad situation worse which would have led to more destructive choices further down the road ? In any event this thread (imo) is about who should do what with these detainees - not 'down with america' diversions.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

That would be a matter of your opinion. Not all american policies are failures. Certainly far fewer than the policies of al qaida or the taliban.

The majority were failures.

Morlar wrote: »

Also when your deciding american policy was a failure how do you know that it was not the best of a bad choice ? And that if they had done nothing they could have made an already bad situation worse which would have led to more destructive choices further down the road ? In any event this thread (imo) is about who should do what with these detainees - not 'down with america' diversions.

Well the failures were so spectacular, I could not come to any other conclusion.

Anyway, the American people seem to agree with me, as they voted the republicans out of office.

Well, people keep talking about how great there policies, I am just disagreeing.

K-9

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15158108/

Great Anti American propaganda.

K-9

wes wrote: »

Anyway, the American people seem to agree with me, as they voted the republicans out of office.

Well, people keep talking about how great there policies, I am just disagreeing.

Even McCain agreed, the famous Pinko, Liberal, PC'er, Anti War campaigner.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

So you choose to ignore the fact that a lot of people in Gitmo, were not found on battlefields.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a some of them were.

In any event most of them were found in 'hotspots' if not actual battlefields.

They (the british ones at least) were not random muslims dragged out of the beds of their council flats.

K-9

Morlar wrote: »

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a some of them were.

In any event most of them were found in 'hotspots' if not actual battlefields.

They (the british ones at least) were not random muslims dragged out of the beds of their council flats.

Yep, but AFAIK, only the ones that have been cleared would be let in here.

I don't know about you, but British Intelligence has been proven to be wrong.

wes

Morlar wrote: »

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a some of them were.

Hardly, I said they weren't all found that way. You seem to insist they were.

Morlar wrote: »

In any event most of them were found in 'hotspots' if not actual battlefields.

So they were injured. Still they were found all over the place, and handed over by many different people, who did it for the money.

Morlar wrote: »

They (the british ones at least) were not random muslims dragged out of the beds of their council flats.

I remember the first group let out who were British, were kidnapped on there way to a wedding. They even made a movie about it.

Morlar

wes wrote: »

The majority were failures.



Well the failures were so spectacular, I could not come to any other conclusion.

Anyway, the American people seem to agree with me, as they voted the republicans out of office.

Well, people keep talking about how great there policies, I am just disagreeing.

I think with all this anti-american guff you are trying to divert from the fact that many of these people are dangerous. Acc to one study 8% are involved in terrorist activity upon release (the link you ignored which outlined the names of those who did what when - - - - > http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf ).

That study did not count those involved in propaganda, recruitment and so on. A reasonable person would expect that a higher portion of them are now radicalised muslims to some extent and therefore not desirable. The point being Ireland does not need them - they are not our responsibility in any way shape or form.