How is a 15 yr old 'high value'?
Fuck Israel
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Reported plea deal in Guantanamo case draws fire
Jihadist hax, griefing and attacks on high-profile facebook pages, I guess.Dilbert_X wrote:
How is a 15 yr old 'high value'?
Protip: He's not Afghani.Macbeth wrote:
If I had to choose were to spend lives/money i would have preferred to continue to rebuild Iraq then Afghanistan.JohnG@lt wrote:
Now Iraq I'll somewhat agree was a 'bad war'... Afghanistan is not a war we chose. Who in their right mind would point at a globe and pick Afghanistan to invade? We will reap zero future benefits from being there. Was it somewhat kneejerk in response to 9/11? Sure. But it was hardly unjustified.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see the point of the US/Cuba prosecuting a handful of footsoldiers for what happened during a war of the US's choosing.
If the average jihadi is ready and willing to die a few years in prison and a slap on the wrist is going to deter exactly nothing.
Still though. Invade a country and then prosecute the people there for fighting you.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I love this.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Taliban didn't have them to hand over so your point is moot, handled differently AQ could have been neutralised and Bin Laden captured without mobilising half of Pakistan against the US.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm not going to rise to the bait. Aside from sending assassins and creating an international crisis, there wasn't any other choice left to the US. The Taliban weren't going to hand them over to us.Dilbert_X wrote:
The US had no reason to go to war with Afghanistan, it was a war of choice.
AQ Could and should have been dealt with very differently.
The average 15 year old had no clue about any of this, just another round of invaders who needed grenades thrown at them.
Tell us. How exactly could it have been handled differently? You've already said multiple times that there's no way the Taliban would've handed AQ over due to Pashtun tribal custom (but now you say they didn't have them to hand over...interesting).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
he's canadian.Dilbert_X wrote:
How is a 15 yr old 'high value'?
Simple, if the US had sent forces to go after Bin Laden - instead of invading the whole country - the Taliban could have been fended off easily enough and Bin Laden captured. Proper focussing of resources, not spreading them across the whole of Afghanistan and holding more than half in reserve for Iraq.FEOS wrote:
I love this.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Taliban didn't have them to hand over so your point is moot, handled differently AQ could have been neutralised and Bin Laden captured without mobilising half of Pakistan against the US.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm not going to rise to the bait. Aside from sending assassins and creating an international crisis, there wasn't any other choice left to the US. The Taliban weren't going to hand them over to us.
Tell us. How exactly could it have been handled differently? You've already said multiple times that there's no way the Taliban would've handed AQ over due to Pashtun tribal custom (but now you say they didn't have them to hand over...interesting).
Here's an exercise for you, how do you suppose the Israelies would have done it if Bin Laden had killed 3,000 Israelis in a single attack, bearing in mind the way they tracked down retired Nazis and the Munich terrorists?
Would they have taken on two unrelated regimes and failed to get their man?
Fuck Israel
You're mixing the burden of the argument, assuming that the plan on 6 Oct 01 was to go into Iraq. Of course, you assume that...but do let's stay in reality for a bit. So we'll ignore the Iraq trollbait.Dilbert_X wrote:
Simple, if the US had sent forces to go after Bin Laden - instead of invading the whole country - the Taliban could have been fended off easily enough and Bin Laden captured. Proper focussing of resources, not spreading them across the whole of Afghanistan and holding more than half in reserve for Iraq.FEOS wrote:
I love this.Dilbert_X wrote:
The Taliban didn't have them to hand over so your point is moot, handled differently AQ could have been neutralised and Bin Laden captured without mobilising half of Pakistan against the US.
Tell us. How exactly could it have been handled differently? You've already said multiple times that there's no way the Taliban would've handed AQ over due to Pashtun tribal custom (but now you say they didn't have them to hand over...interesting).
Here's an exercise for you, how do you suppose the Israelies would have done it if Bin Laden had killed 3,000 Israelis in a single attack, bearing in mind the way they tracked down retired Nazis and the Munich terrorists?
Would they have taken on two unrelated regimes and failed to get their man?
So we just send in small teams of SOF/CIA into uncontrolled territory. Check that--make that hostile/denied territory. And you assume they'll just traipse around, snatch up UBL and take him back to the US. What fucking world do you live in? Oh, that's right--the one where you have zero background in any of this, so you just pull dumbfuck ideas out of your uninformed ass and think they're the bee's knees. Probably room for you on Obama's staff, at that rate.
Here's how your idea would've worked out: those teams would've been wiped out. Pinned down by AQL fighters with Taliban on all sides. Then what? Where's their support? We don't have any FOBs for them to call for help. Nearest CAS is several hundred/thousands of miles away in the Indian Ocean, at best. And they have to fly through denied airspace (yes, the Taliban did have at least rudimentary air defenses). Even when we had complete control of the air and we tried those types of operations in Taliban/AQ-controlled areas (exactly the type of operation you suggest), we had entire hard-core SOF units get wiped out while waiting on back-up.
As to the Israeli question: The Israelis do it the way they do because they have to do it that way. They don't have the resources in people or equipment to do it any other way, and it's extremely high risk.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Troops were held back ready for Iraq, thats a fact.FEOS wrote:
You're mixing the burden of the argument, assuming that the plan on 6 Oct 01 was to go into Iraq. Of course, you assume that...but do let's stay in reality for a bit. So we'll ignore the Iraq trollbait.
At that time the US had bases in Saudi Arabi and Turkey, plus of course Israel who are always so keen to help, and Pakistan is pretty close - right on the border in fact......
So your Indian Ocean comment is plain silly.
Fuck Israel
troops have been held back ready for iraq since 1991
Tu Stultus Es
National Security Strategy has been to be prepared for two major theater wars plus Korea since Bush I, IIRC. The troops weren't "held back for Iraq". They were "held back" IAW a strategy that had been in place for decades.Dilbert_X wrote:
Troops were held back ready for Iraq, thats a fact.FEOS wrote:
You're mixing the burden of the argument, assuming that the plan on 6 Oct 01 was to go into Iraq. Of course, you assume that...but do let's stay in reality for a bit. So we'll ignore the Iraq trollbait.
All of which are hundreds/thousands of miles away from the AO. No bases in Pakistan. Closest "base" would be carriers in the Indian Ocean...just as I said. Closest land base would be Al Udeid, in Qatar...maybe Thumrait in Oman.Dilbert_X wrote:
At that time the US had bases in Saudi Arabi and Turkey, plus of course Israel who are always so keen to help, and Pakistan is pretty close - right on the border in fact......
So your Indian Ocean comment is plain silly.
So, again. When one compares your nonsense to little things like "facts", it's your silly ideas that are...well, silly.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Strange then that so many more troops were available for Iraq than Afghanistan.FEOS wrote:
National Security Strategy has been to be prepared for two major theater wars plus Korea since Bush I, IIRC. The troops weren't "held back for Iraq". They were "held back" IAW a strategy that had been in place for decades.
Could have used Pakistan, even the Iranians were ready to help.All of which are hundreds/thousands of miles away from the AO. No bases in Pakistan. Closest "base" would be carriers in the Indian Ocean...just as I said. Closest land base would be Al Udeid, in Qatar...maybe Thumrait in Oman.
But really, if negotiations with the Taliban hadn't been conducted by idiots much more progress could have been made.
Fuck Israel
it's not as if Franks wasn't given the troops he asked for for Afghanistan, Dilbert. Your conspiracy theories are really running away from you.Dilbert_X wrote:
Strange then that so many more troops were available for Iraq than Afghanistan.FEOS wrote:
National Security Strategy has been to be prepared for two major theater wars plus Korea since Bush I, IIRC. The troops weren't "held back for Iraq". They were "held back" IAW a strategy that had been in place for decades.
We actually tried for Pakistan. It was politically unfeasible for both sides, primarily for Pakistan.Dilbert_X wrote:
Could have used Pakistan, even the Iranians were ready to help.All of which are hundreds/thousands of miles away from the AO. No bases in Pakistan. Closest "base" would be carriers in the Indian Ocean...just as I said. Closest land base would be Al Udeid, in Qatar...maybe Thumrait in Oman.
But really, if negotiations with the Taliban hadn't been conducted by idiots much more progress could have been made.
The Iranians wanted to help the same way they wanted to "help" in Iraq.
Since the negotiations with the Taliban were done by the UN, the EU, several stand-alone European countries, as well as the US...maybe you're right.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Omar Khadr's lawyer has denied the existence of a plea deal in the controversial case, less than a day before his client's long-delayed war crimes trial is set to begin at Guantanamo Bay.
Leading up to Monday's trial, there have been several reports that Khadr -- a Canadian-born detainee who has spent eight years at Gitmo -- would plead guilty to killing a U.S. soldier on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2002.
In return, he would serve eight more years in jail. There is word that Khadr could spend at least part of his sentence in Canada.
But lawyer Dennis Edney told reporters in Guantanamo Bay that no such deal was in place.
"All I can tell you is there's a trial and there's no deal in place as of this particular moment," he said.
However, such a denial could simply be legal posturing, said CTV's Paul Workman, reporting from Guantanamo Bay Sunday.
"We understand that there will be a meeting this afternoon with the judge in the case," he said, adding that the defence and the prosecution "may be able to finalize a plea bargaining deal of some kind."
Workman noted that any talk of a deal will be avoided before the court date.
"Nobody seems to want to jinx the idea that there might be a plea bargain in this case, and that Omar Khadr might at some point be returned to Canada to serve some of his sentence there."
Khadr attorney Nathan Whitling hinted as much, saying that if any deal is struck, it likely would not be announced until Monday.
Workman said that reporters at the military base were given a tour of the prison, where Khadr was spotted wearing new sunglasses.
Khadr, who has poor eyesight, was given the glasses by the Canadian government, Khadr's lawyer told Workman.
"(The lawyer) said, ‘That's really the only thing the Canadian government has ever done for Omar Khadr,'" Workman said, adding that Khadr's lawyer has been highly critical of Ottawa's response to the long-running legal ordeal.
Khadr, who has been tortured while in custody, has been charged for five war crimes.
On Thursday, Canadian officials confirmed that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon to talk about the Khadr case.
Reportedly, Clinton called Cannon to press the Conservative government into repatriating the Toronto-born Khadr, who has been in prison since the age of 15 and has been called the last-known Western detainee at Guantanamo Bay.
Still, the Conservatives have long refused to bring Khadr back to Canada, despite a ruling from the Supreme Court which stated that his rights had been violated over the past eight years.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his party have long held the same position on the Khadr file; namely, the U.S. justice system must first deal with Khadr before Canada can intervene.
Khadr's trial initially began in August but was halted because a defence lawyer became ill.
With a report from The Canadian Press
Leading up to Monday's trial, there have been several reports that Khadr -- a Canadian-born detainee who has spent eight years at Gitmo -- would plead guilty to killing a U.S. soldier on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2002.
In return, he would serve eight more years in jail. There is word that Khadr could spend at least part of his sentence in Canada.
But lawyer Dennis Edney told reporters in Guantanamo Bay that no such deal was in place.
"All I can tell you is there's a trial and there's no deal in place as of this particular moment," he said.
However, such a denial could simply be legal posturing, said CTV's Paul Workman, reporting from Guantanamo Bay Sunday.
"We understand that there will be a meeting this afternoon with the judge in the case," he said, adding that the defence and the prosecution "may be able to finalize a plea bargaining deal of some kind."
Workman noted that any talk of a deal will be avoided before the court date.
"Nobody seems to want to jinx the idea that there might be a plea bargain in this case, and that Omar Khadr might at some point be returned to Canada to serve some of his sentence there."
Khadr attorney Nathan Whitling hinted as much, saying that if any deal is struck, it likely would not be announced until Monday.
Workman said that reporters at the military base were given a tour of the prison, where Khadr was spotted wearing new sunglasses.
Khadr, who has poor eyesight, was given the glasses by the Canadian government, Khadr's lawyer told Workman.
"(The lawyer) said, ‘That's really the only thing the Canadian government has ever done for Omar Khadr,'" Workman said, adding that Khadr's lawyer has been highly critical of Ottawa's response to the long-running legal ordeal.
Khadr, who has been tortured while in custody, has been charged for five war crimes.
On Thursday, Canadian officials confirmed that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton phoned Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon to talk about the Khadr case.
Reportedly, Clinton called Cannon to press the Conservative government into repatriating the Toronto-born Khadr, who has been in prison since the age of 15 and has been called the last-known Western detainee at Guantanamo Bay.
Still, the Conservatives have long refused to bring Khadr back to Canada, despite a ruling from the Supreme Court which stated that his rights had been violated over the past eight years.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his party have long held the same position on the Khadr file; namely, the U.S. justice system must first deal with Khadr before Canada can intervene.
Khadr's trial initially began in August but was halted because a defence lawyer became ill.
With a report from The Canadian Press
CTV.ca News Staff
Omar Khadr will reportedly be able to seek transfer to a Canadian prison within one year, after he pleaded guilty to war-crimes charges in a U.S. military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on Monday.
Changing his original plea from not-guilty means Khadr is admitting he threw a grenade that killed a U.S. medic in Afghanistan in 2002. He also admitted to planting improvised explosive devices and receiving weapons training from al Qaeda.
The plea also means that Khadr, 24, will avoid a possible life sentence that could have resulted if he had pressed forward with his war-crimes trial.
Khadr, dressed in a dark suit and tie, was questioned by presiding judge Col. Patrick Parrish about whether he understood the terms of the 50-paragraph document that spells out the details of what he is admitting to the court.
"Has anyone forced you to enter into this stipulation?" Parrish asked Khadr on Monday morning.
"No," Khadr replied to the judge.
After a half-hour of questioning, Parrish asked Khadr: "It's your voluntary decision to continue with the plea of guilty?"
Khadr told the judge "yes."
His guilty plea is accompanied by a plea agreement that is not being disclosed for the time being. However, The Canadian Press reported Monday that Khadr would be able to apply for transfer to a Canadian prison after serving one year of his sentence.
It was unclear Monday whether the federal government, which has long refused to repatriate Khadr, had agreed to allow him to return to Canada.
Catherine Loubier, a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, refused to comment on Monday's developments.
"This matter is between Mr. Khadr and the U.S. government. We have no further comment," Loubier said.
Before the details of the plea are officially released, a military jury will have an opportunity to deliver its own sentence for Khadr.
Should the jury impose a harsher sentence than is included in the deal, officials overseeing the tribunal will reject it in favour of the terms set out in the plea agreement.
Reporting from Guantanamo Bay, CTV's Washington Bureau Chief Paul Workman said the jurors will not know the contents of the deal when they consider and deliver their sentence.
With the plea in place, Workman said the bottom line is that "a trial has been avoided, there is a plea agreement and we're just going to have to see how that plays out."
Khadr has been in U.S. custody since he was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old. At this point, he has spent one-third of his life in U.S. custody.
Khadr is the last Western citizen to be held at Guantanamo and the only person who has been charged in connection with the death of an American in Afghanistan.
His supporters say that Khadr is not a war criminal, but a child-soldier who was dragged into conflict by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, a one-time associate of Osama bin Laden who was killed in Pakistan in 2003.
Khadr had long rejected the notion of a plea agreement. However, his lawyer, Dennis Edney, said Monday his client had to plead guilty to avoid a trial, which he called "an unfair process."
"The charges he pled guilty to of course are very serious," Edney told reporters. "But in our view, it's all a fiction. In our view, Mr. Khadr is innocent."
With files from The Associated Press and The Canadian Press
Omar Khadr will reportedly be able to seek transfer to a Canadian prison within one year, after he pleaded guilty to war-crimes charges in a U.S. military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay on Monday.
Changing his original plea from not-guilty means Khadr is admitting he threw a grenade that killed a U.S. medic in Afghanistan in 2002. He also admitted to planting improvised explosive devices and receiving weapons training from al Qaeda.
The plea also means that Khadr, 24, will avoid a possible life sentence that could have resulted if he had pressed forward with his war-crimes trial.
Khadr, dressed in a dark suit and tie, was questioned by presiding judge Col. Patrick Parrish about whether he understood the terms of the 50-paragraph document that spells out the details of what he is admitting to the court.
"Has anyone forced you to enter into this stipulation?" Parrish asked Khadr on Monday morning.
"No," Khadr replied to the judge.
After a half-hour of questioning, Parrish asked Khadr: "It's your voluntary decision to continue with the plea of guilty?"
Khadr told the judge "yes."
His guilty plea is accompanied by a plea agreement that is not being disclosed for the time being. However, The Canadian Press reported Monday that Khadr would be able to apply for transfer to a Canadian prison after serving one year of his sentence.
It was unclear Monday whether the federal government, which has long refused to repatriate Khadr, had agreed to allow him to return to Canada.
Catherine Loubier, a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, refused to comment on Monday's developments.
"This matter is between Mr. Khadr and the U.S. government. We have no further comment," Loubier said.
Before the details of the plea are officially released, a military jury will have an opportunity to deliver its own sentence for Khadr.
Should the jury impose a harsher sentence than is included in the deal, officials overseeing the tribunal will reject it in favour of the terms set out in the plea agreement.
Reporting from Guantanamo Bay, CTV's Washington Bureau Chief Paul Workman said the jurors will not know the contents of the deal when they consider and deliver their sentence.
With the plea in place, Workman said the bottom line is that "a trial has been avoided, there is a plea agreement and we're just going to have to see how that plays out."
Khadr has been in U.S. custody since he was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old. At this point, he has spent one-third of his life in U.S. custody.
Khadr is the last Western citizen to be held at Guantanamo and the only person who has been charged in connection with the death of an American in Afghanistan.
His supporters say that Khadr is not a war criminal, but a child-soldier who was dragged into conflict by his father, Ahmed Said Khadr, a one-time associate of Osama bin Laden who was killed in Pakistan in 2003.
Khadr had long rejected the notion of a plea agreement. However, his lawyer, Dennis Edney, said Monday his client had to plead guilty to avoid a trial, which he called "an unfair process."
"The charges he pled guilty to of course are very serious," Edney told reporters. "But in our view, it's all a fiction. In our view, Mr. Khadr is innocent."
With files from The Associated Press and The Canadian Press
Last edited by Karbin (2010-10-25 13:04:21)
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Reported plea deal in Guantanamo case draws fire