| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Who Will Be Declared an Enemy Combatant Next? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 2 2006, 08:03 AM (323 Views) | |
| QuirtEvans | Apr 2 2006, 08:03 AM Post #1 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
From the Washington Post. LONDON -- As they tried to board a flight at Gatwick Airport in November 2002, three Arab residents of Britain were pulled aside by security agents. Police had questions about their luggage and ties to a radical Islamic cleric. After four days in custody, the men were cleared of suspicion and resumed their trip. But British intelligence officials weren't ready to drop their interest in the men. Before the three flew out of the country, the MI5 security service sent cables to a "foreign intelligence agency," according to court testimony and newly declassified MI5 documents, calling the men Islamic extremists and disclosing their destination: Gambia, a tiny West African country. When they arrived on Nov. 8, they were detained by Gambian and U.S. intelligence operatives, who interrogated them again, this time for a month, British and U.S. documents show. Then two of the men, Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, disappeared into the netherworld of the U.S. government's battle against terrorism, taken first to a prison in Afghanistan, then to the Naval detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The primary purpose of this elaborate operation, documents and interviews suggest, was not to neutralize a pair of potential terrorists -- authorities have offered no evidence that they were planning attacks -- but to turn them into informers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6040101465.html |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 2 2006, 08:19 AM Post #2 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Hopefully we tortured (oops! I mean aggressively interrogated) them so we could get some really good and accurate information out of them! |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 2 2006, 12:04 PM Post #3 |
|
Senior Carp
|
This is a good thing. These people were close to terrorist-recruitment clerics. You don't just happen to have friends like that. I view this as pro-active effort on the part of our government. Being friends with people who actively plot murder has consequences. In fact, if a person knows of people plotting murder they have both a moral and legal obligation to turn them in and tell the govenment what they know. Good job by our government, at long last. Too bad this sort of pro-active strategy didn't happen before 9-11. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 2 2006, 12:29 PM Post #4 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Jeffrey, let's deal with the abstract for a moment: Do you believe that the US government should detain any one who is qualified but refuse to be government informant? Let's say one of your close friend, business associate, or family member turns out to be an enemy of the state, and this person has a lot of trust in you -- will you volunteer to be the government's informant bring him down? Should the US government asks, and you refuse, to be an informant, should you be declared "enemy combatant" on that ground alone? |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 2 2006, 12:31 PM Post #5 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Must be a new law that I haven't heard about. As far as I know, "being friends" is neither a crime, nor an act of war. It may be being pro-active, but it's also illegal and immoral. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 2 2006, 12:48 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Yes. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| FrankM | Apr 2 2006, 01:39 PM Post #7 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Jeffrey didn't say that was a crime. His next sentence states what would be a crime. Meanwhile i read the entire article and can't conclude much of anything because I can't assume the article's author knows the whole story. But, if i were to take the article as the whole story, I'd disapprove of the British Intelligence's actions in a close call. |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Apr 2 2006, 01:43 PM Post #8 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
There's no suggestion that they knew of anyone plotting murder. Moreover, the sentence I quoted:
says nothing about knowing about anyone plotting murder. All it says is that being friends ... simply being friends ... should have governmental consequences. Except that it doesn't. Not under the rule of law, anyway. Moreover, even if there were such a law, it might well run afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of association. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 2 2006, 02:49 PM Post #9 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I commend your patriotism. Kudos. Now the follow-up question: Suppose a person refuses the government's request to become an informant, do you think that that person should be detained on this ground alone? |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 2 2006, 05:23 PM Post #10 |
|
Senior Carp
|
If you go to lot of Mob weddings, and have dinner with lots of Mob figures, you should expect to be questioned to see what you really know ("consequences"). If you know the Mob is going to kill someone, you are an accomplice if you don't rat, and are legally liable, including incarceration. If you act as an informant, the government may decide to release you from incarceration or waive other due legal penalties, in return for your co-operation. This applies even more so if your associates are terrorist recruiters. I don't see why this is regarded as controversial. The government acted properly here. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








10:34 AM Jul 11