Former Guantanamo detainees suspected of joining ISIS, other groups in Syria

[jimnyc]

What a shock, terrorists acting like terrorists. Who would have ever thought of such a thing? Maybe we can at least make trades for who is left there. :dunno: :rolleyes:

------

As many as 20 to 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees released within the last two to three years are suspected by intelligence and Defense officials of having joined forces with the Islamic State and other militant groups inside Syria, Fox News has learned.

The development has cemented fears that the U.S. military would once again encounter militants taken off the battlefield.

The intelligence offers a mixed picture, and officials say the figures are not exact. But they are certain at least some of the released detainees are fighting with the Islamic State, or ISIS, on the ground inside Syria. Others are believed to be supporting Al Qaeda or the affiliated al-Nusra Front in Syria.

A number of former detainees also have chosen to help these groups from outside the country, financing operations and supporting their propaganda campaigns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/30/sources-former-guantanamo-detainees-suspected-joining-isis-other-groups-in/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What a shock, terrorists acting like terrorists. Who would have ever thought of such a thing? Maybe we can at least make trades for who is left there. :dunno: :rolleyes:

------

As many as 20 to 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees released within the last two to three years are suspected by intelligence and Defense officials of having joined forces with the Islamic State and other militant groups inside Syria, Fox News has learned.

The development has cemented fears that the U.S. military would once again encounter militants taken off the battlefield.

The intelligence offers a mixed picture, and officials say the figures are not exact. But they are certain at least some of the released detainees are fighting with the Islamic State, or ISIS, on the ground inside Syria. Others are believed to be supporting Al Qaeda or the affiliated al-Nusra Front in Syria.

A number of former detainees also have chosen to help these groups from outside the country, financing operations and supporting their propaganda campaigns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/30/sources-former-guantanamo-detainees-suspected-joining-isis-other-groups-in/
FFFING crazy murdering muslim scum remain ffing crazy murdering muslim scum...
So nice that Obama had them released isn't it?

Just some more of his handy-work coming back to bite us like the umpteenth ton of it already has for 6 long years now.
We have our very own terrorist leading this nation and being lauded by morons for his efforts.
That is the bitter fruit we harvest from our -liberal/socialist education system.
It taints everything and we are lost until we scrap it to replace it with the pre-fifties version of it..
Every hardcore, radical leftist/progressive/liberal/dem should be deported IMHO.
AS THEY ARE ALL ABSOLUTE NATION DESTROYING TRAITORS! As well as La RAZA, New Black Panther Party , etc...
Every damn one of them... -Tyr

[NightTrain]

I think the only ones surprised by this are the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[fj1200]

I think the only ones surprised by this are the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Only if they don't read their own intelligence reports.

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/GTMO.pdf


What a shock, terrorists acting like terrorists. Who would have ever thought of such a thing? Maybe we can at least make trades for who is left there.
------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/30/sources-former-guantanamo-detainees-suspected-joining-isis-other-groups-in/

How many would you have expected to return to the battlefield?


Senior Defense and intelligence officials say the vast majority of detainees released from Guantanamo don't return to the fight -- and of those who do, relatively few have made it to Syria.

Of the 620 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay, 180 have returned or are suspected to have returned to the battlefield.

Of those 180, sources say 20 to 30 have either joined ISIS or other militants groups in Syria, or are participating with these groups from outside countries. Officials say most of those 20 to 30 are operating inside Syria.

[Drummond]

Only if they don't read their own intelligence reports.

http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/GTMO.pdf



How many would you have expected to return to the battlefield?

Even one is one too many, surely.

I don't see that there's any excuse for it.

[jimnyc]

How many would you have expected to return to the battlefield?

All of them. I believe once a terrorist, always a terrorist. Similar in thought to once a murderer always a murderer. Personally, I would have evacuated Guantanomo a long time ago, just the personnel. Leave the prisoners in their cells. Return one year later and take out the trash. Reopen the prison to new dirtbags that are found. Torture them for awhile and repeat the process. :)

[fj1200]

Even one is one too many, surely.

I don't see that there's any excuse for it.

How about in real-world land?


All of them.

It seems their recidivism rate is well below your target then. :poke:

[jimnyc]

It seems their recidivism rate is well below your target then. :poke:

Terrorists have proven time and time again that they are willing to wait great lengths. If any of these guys were 'legitimately' just caught up in the battlefield and had little to do with terrorism... then MAYBE I could go along with their release. But if actual terrorists, or working with terrorists - lock them in a cell in Gitmo. Then toss the key in the bottom of the Atlantic somewhere. Tell the scumbag that if he can find the key, he's free to go. About as much of a chance terrorists give their innocent victims!

[fj1200]

Terrorists have proven time and time again that they are willing to wait great lengths. If any of these guys were 'legitimately' just caught up in the battlefield and had little to do with terrorism... then MAYBE I could go along with their release. But if actual terrorists, or working with terrorists - lock them in a cell in Gitmo. Then toss the key in the bottom of the Atlantic somewhere. Tell the scumbag that if he can find the key, he's free to go. About as much of a chance terrorists give their innocent victims!

Terrorists do suck but there's the thing, we don't really know in many of the cases. I'm sure some number of those guys were just swept up and we should decide what to do with them. If they committed an act against the US stick them at Gitmo and be done with it. If they committed an act against another country then let the other country have them.

[jimnyc]

Terrorists do suck but there's the thing, we don't really know in many of the cases. I'm sure some number of those guys were just swept up and we should decide what to do with them. If they committed an act against the US stick them at Gitmo and be done with it. If they committed an act against another country then let the other country have them.

Fair enough. I would like to think our guys, intelligence and military efforts, should know enough about these guys to make a proper determination. I think if they literally attacked the USA or a US embassy, or US military stations, they should see a needle or a rather loud humming noise. The attack against another country would depend. If it were someone that took out literally thousands of people, and perhaps the plan is to send them back to Qatar - I would recommend against. They have recently showed that if given a murdering terrorist that they would be willing to let him walk freely. There might be other reasons to not send them back. Afghanistan. Who would we send them too for incarceration there? Pakistan? Fuckers can't be trusted. Palestine? Ok, this isn't the humor section. Yemen? That place is like a safe haven for terrorists, can't be trusted.

Too many factors involved and I would regret my decision if one of them killed again. Much easier to just drop a nuke on Gitmo and call it a day. :)

[aboutime]

Anyone remember how people made so much noise, and predicted the Gitmo Guys would get back into the fight?

And, does anyone remember how everyone from the Obummer admin SWORE..Up and Down, how the nations where they were sent...WOULD KEEP AN EYE ON THEM?

Personally. I would like to see GITMO emptied enough to house OBAMA, REID, PELOSI, and every DEMOCRAT in Congress for their permanent vacations.

http://icansayit.com/images/ILoveGitmo.jpg

[fj1200]

Fair enough.

Well, we are a country of laws >>> treaties >>> Geneva Convention. If I'm not mistaken the GC has rules for military tribunals.

[jimnyc]

Well, we are a country of laws >>> treaties >>> Geneva Convention. If I'm not mistaken the GC has rules for military tribunals.

It doesn't cover a whole lot about terrorists. And they gave up any of those rights when they got involved with terrorism anyway. Gather up all the prisoners, put hoods over their heads, have them walk with their arms on the person in front of them, just like kids in grammar school. Walk them over the "border" into Cuba. Pay a few locals to make them disappear.

Perhaps the folks that can't be trusted in Washington will be more lenient, or maybe even the military judges. But if up to me, they all voluntarily gave up their right to breath. I'm not as understanding as any laws, or other avenues that allow terrorists to have another shot at life. And what tiny little bit of hope I had that perhaps other countries would take these prisoners seriously, went out the window when 5 very deadly terrorists were treated like royalty.

[aboutime]

It doesn't cover a whole lot about terrorists. And they gave up any of those rights when they got involved with terrorism anyway. Gather up all the prisoners, put hoods over their heads, have them walk with their arms on the person in front of them, just like kids in grammar school. Walk them over the "border" into Cuba. Pay a few locals to make them disappear.

Perhaps the folks that can't be trusted in Washington will be more lenient, or maybe even the military judges. But if up to me, they all voluntarily gave up their right to breath. I'm not as understanding as any laws, or other avenues that allow terrorists to have another shot at life. And what tiny little bit of hope I had that perhaps other countries would take these prisoners seriously, went out the window when 5 very deadly terrorists were treated like royalty.



Jim. The worst part of all this terrorist treatment began when the Liberal, Whiners, and Constitution Ignoring Democrats demanded that Non-citizen enemy, terrorists should be protected by OUR CONSTITUTION. Giving them access to our Court system became the straw that broke the Security of our Nation in half.

[fj1200]

It doesn't cover a whole lot about terrorists.

True, it covers POWs. Terrorism is the "crime" by which they should be judged.

[Kathianne]

Well, we are a country of laws >>> treaties >>> Geneva Convention. If I'm not mistaken the GC has rules for military tribunals.
I basically want to agree with you, truly. Then I look at the records Nazi Germany kept, really paving the way for the Nuremberg Trials. Do you see this adhesion to laws nowadays?

I guess I'm appalled at how the West is resorting to calling on 'rules of war' and 'rules of law' when the enemy keeps beheading and stoning their own and ours.

No, I don't want to go down their road, certainly not with the weapons available to us, but to think we're still playing by the GC is more than one hand up your a**.

[Jeff]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6756&stc=1

[Jeff]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6758&stc=1


Once a terrorist always a terrorist, kill em all let Allah sort them out !!

[Drummond]

I basically want to agree with you, truly. Then I look at the records Nazi Germany kept, really paving the way for the Nuremberg Trials. Do you see this adhesion to laws nowadays?

I guess I'm appalled at how the West is resorting to calling on 'rules of war' and 'rules of law' when the enemy keeps beheading and stoning their own and ours.

No, I don't want to go down their road, certainly not with the weapons available to us, but to think we're still playing by the GC is more than one hand up your a**.

I especially agree with the last sentence.

It's high time we in the West stopped finding excuses for soft-pedalling on this. Terrorists won't observe 'rules of engagement' in attacking us (!!) .. and will see our approach as just another weakness to be exploited.

[Drummond]

True, it covers POWs. Terrorism is the "crime" by which they should be judged.

I'd hope you were joking (.. though, knowing you as I do, I'm sure you're actually NOT ..).

FJ -- POW's have a legitimacy that cannot reasonably be applied to terrorists. The two are different. To treat or regard both with any conception of equality is, at best, a rather sick joke.

Definition of 'Prisoner of War' ...

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/prisoner-of-war


a member (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/member) of the armed (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/armed_1) forces (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/force) who has been caught (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/caught) by enemy (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/enemy) forces (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/force) during a war (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/war):

A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES, FJ. Hardly applies to terrorist savages - surely !!

I, for one, am not in the business of conferring any level of ad-hoc determination of legitimacy to terrorists. Even if this offends your sensibilities, FJ, you need to understand that terrorists should get the treatment that they've earned, not something altogether better !!!

--- And I really don't care if Jimmy Carter disapproves !!!

'Congrats', by the way, FJ - this is an example of your taking on a viewpoint, and running with it, which a LEFTIE would be proud to do.

[fj1200]

I basically want to agree with you, truly. Then I look at the records Nazi Germany kept, really paving the way for the Nuremberg Trials. Do you see this adhesion to laws nowadays?

I guess I'm appalled at how the West is resorting to calling on 'rules of war' and 'rules of law' when the enemy keeps beheading and stoning their own and ours.

No, I don't want to go down their road, certainly not with the weapons available to us, but to think we're still playing by the GC is more than one hand up your a**.

I'm not sure I catch your Nazi reference. We should be more like them? less like them? And your rule of law question; Because BO or in general? He is but one idiot who will be on his way out soon.

And I guess I disagree that we're really being hamstrung by the GC.


I especially agree with the last sentence.

It's high time we in the West stopped finding excuses for soft-pedalling on this. Terrorists won't observe 'rules of engagement' in attacking us (!!) .. and will see our approach as just another weakness to be exploited.

We're hardly soft pedaling on terrorists. Our kill ratio is probably orders of magnitude higher.

[fj1200]

I'd hope you were joking (.. though, knowing you as I do, I'm sure you're actually NOT ..).

FJ -- POW's have a legitimacy that cannot reasonably be applied to terrorists. The two are different. To treat or regard both with any conception of equality is, at best, a rather sick joke.

Definition of 'Prisoner of War' ...

A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES, FJ. Hardly applies to terrorist savages - surely !!

I, for one, am not in the business of conferring any level of ad-hoc determination of legitimacy to terrorists. Even if this offends your sensibilities, FJ, you need to understand that terrorists should get the treatment that they've earned, not something altogether better !!!

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld says otherwise. There is no "ad-hoc legitimacy" there is the rule of law that governs our behavior. It is the left that chooses what and when it wants to apply the law. Conservatives, if you truly understood, would know that sometimes the law isn't the feel good solution that you want.


--- And I really don't care if Jimmy Carter disapproves !!!

'Congrats', by the way, FJ - this is an example of your taking on a viewpoint, and running with it, which a LEFTIE would be proud to do.

This is why you are a complete and utter idiot. You apparently don't even care that Margaret Thatcher disapproves. You don't know what being a Thatcherite even means. It certainly doesn't mean you get to pick and choose what you get to accept and what you don't. If you had an actual core ideology then you might understand but as it stands you're too stupid to understand.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

True, it covers POWs. Terrorism is the "crime" by which they should be judged.

ARENT THEY WAGING WAR ON US?
They claim they are. They are killing like they are.
You can not have it both ways, Hoss..... That's how librawls want it and always try for..
Are they petty criminals, or warriors- "freedom fighters" or just mad raving independents with no cause at all?

Here is what they are--just in case you are too slow to get it...


They are murdering Jihadist muslim scum that should be exterminated with EXTREME PREJUDICE- given no quarter..

A shame that you can not grasp reality, truth and murdering atrocities right in front of you when all the world has access to see it by way of reported and verified cases by the thousands. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld says otherwise. There is no "ad-hoc legitimacy" there is the rule of law that governs our behavior. It is the left that chooses what and when it wants to apply the law. Conservatives, if you truly understood, would know that sometimes the law isn't the feel good solution that you want.

From the comparison you make, you're suggesting a parity of behaviour between Lefties and Conservatives ? BOTH - judging by your description - call it into question as they choose to ?

I hardly think so.

The Left will do whatever it takes to push its agenda. If reality can help, they're happy. If it can't, they'll just blithely ignore it. Conservatives are entirely different. We face reality, we identify with pragmatism to an extent you have yet to grasp.

And Conservatives respect the rule of law, FJ, WAY more than Lefties do ... if you'd been one yourself, you'd understand that without my having to tell you.


This is why you are a complete and utter idiot. You apparently don't even care that Margaret Thatcher disapproves.

... and you say I'm the idiot ?!? In order to disapprove, FJ, she'd have to actually be alive, to manage it !!!!!!!

Show me an example of someone disapproving of anything at all, once they're dead. Consider this your Halloween challenge from me ...


You don't know what being a Thatcherite even means. It certainly doesn't mean you get to pick and choose what you get to accept and what you don't.

Fair enough. But it does mean that laws exist which are shaped to fit realities in play. If a law existed which didn't do what she thought was right, she'd change or repeal it.

British Trade Unions found that one out, to their not inconsiderable cost.


If you had an actual core ideology then you might understand but as it stands you're too stupid to understand.

Flatterer ....

Well, here's one for you. You may find it too indigestible for your Leftie taste, but I don't care.

An ideology, get this, of ZERO TOLERANCE TO TERRORISM.

.... shocking, eh, FJ ? Don't you just feel the urge to go running to a Leftie scriptwriter for new material ... ??

[fj1200]

ARENT THEY WAGING WAR ON US?
They claim they are. They are killing like they are.
You can not have it both ways, Hoss..... That's how librawls want it and always try for..
Are they petty criminals, or warriors- "freedom fighters" or just mad raving independents with no cause at all?

Here is what they are--just in case you are too slow to get it...


They are murdering Jihadist muslim scum that should be exterminated with EXTREME PREJUDICE- given no quarter..

A shame that you can not grasp reality, truth and murdering atrocities right in front of you when all the world has access to see it by way of reported and verified cases by the thousands. -Tyr

Who is "they"? Are we not killing "they" as well? Nevertheless I suppose you'd have no problem with a determination by rule of law to determine exactly who should be "given no quarter."

[fj1200]

From the comparison you make, you're suggesting a parity of behaviour between Lefties and Conservatives ? BOTH - judging by your description - call it into question as they choose to ?

I hardly think so.

The Left will do whatever it takes to push its agenda. If reality can help, they're happy. If it can't, they'll just blithely ignore it. Conservatives are entirely different. We face reality, we identify with pragmatism to an extent you have yet to grasp.

And Conservatives respect the rule of law, FJ, WAY more than Lefties do ... if you'd been one yourself, you'd understand that without my having to tell you.

Who suggested parity? I suggested conservatives value the rule of law whereas you don't.


... and you say I'm the idiot ?!? In order to disapprove, FJ, she'd have to actually be alive, to manage it !!!!!!!

Show me an example of someone disapproving of anything at all, once they're dead. Consider this your Halloween challenge from me ...

Yes, because you are. You say words counter to hers which makes you not in agreement with her. :dunno: I've posted the quotes that you run away from.


Fair enough. But it does mean that laws exist which are shaped to fit realities in play. If a law existed which didn't do what she thought was right, she'd change or repeal it.

British Trade Unions found that one out, to their not inconsiderable cost.

Two good words; the rest was gobbledygook.


Flatterer ....

Well, here's one for you. You may find it too indigestible for your Leftie taste, but I don't care.

An ideology, get this, of ZERO TOLERANCE TO TERRORISM.

.... shocking, eh, FJ ? Don't you just feel the urge to go running to a Leftie scriptwriter for new material ... ??

Who suggested tolerance of terrorism? Mass murders shouldn't be tolerated either but it doesn't mean we should pull out their fingernails. Terrorism should be countered at every turn.

[Drummond]

Who suggested tolerance of terrorism?

You've unashamedly tried to 'humanise' terrorism in other threads in the past (Jimmy Carter would be proud of you). Why ? What sense does it make to try such a thing, unless you're trying to be an apologist for it ?


Mass murders shouldn't be tolerated either but it doesn't mean we should pull out their fingernails. Terrorism should be countered at every turn.

In a 'kind' sort of a way? With self-invented restraint ?

How 'kind' were the 9/11 hijackers ?

[fj1200]

You've unashamedly tried to 'humanise' terrorism in other threads in the past (Jimmy Carter would be proud of you).
And Maggie Thatcher too, but I digress...

Why ? What sense does it make to try such a thing, unless you're trying to be an apologist for it ?

I merely pointed out an inconvenient fact that you overlook; Terrorists, disgusting as they are, are in fact human beings.


In a 'kind' sort of a way? With self-invented restraint ?

How 'kind' were the 9/11 hijackers ?

:confused: Do you have a rational point or more obfuscation of your ignorance and lack of an intelligible argument? :)