# Former Gitmo Resident Now Senior Taliban Commander



## tomahawk6 (10 Mar 2009)

Proof positive that Gitmo detainee's are indeed bad guys and not just some poor goat herder scooped up by american troops and you can take them out of the jihad but you cant take the jihad out of the man. 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gepueqQ9a2V5zxXES7DoGnVhSFHwD96REDRO0

Officials: Afghanistan Taliban leader was at Gitmo
By PAMELA HESS – 1 hour ago 

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say the Taliban's new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan is a former prisoner at the Guantanamo detention center. Pentagon and CIA officials say Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was among 13 prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007. He is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a name officials say is used by the Taliban leader in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan.

One intelligence official told The Associated Press that Rasoul's stated mission is to counter the growing U.S. troop surge.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Mar 2009)

Oh, come on now- I'm sure that this is just one large misunderstanding.  Mr Rasoul is probably just "pretending" to be a "Taliban Commander".  I mean, none of this can possibly be for real, can it?   :


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Mar 2009)

We have not found a way to rehabilitate jihadists. Just like we put down dangerous animals we need to do the same with jihadists.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Mar 2009)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Oh, come on now- I'm sure that this is just one large misunderstanding.  Mr Rasoul is probably just "pretending" to be a "Taliban Commander".  I mean, none of this can possibly be for real, can it?   :



How do we even know it's the SAME Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, right?  :

A bit of background on the lad from the NY Times, and the statement announcing his gang's release.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (11 Mar 2009)

I'd be very surprised if anyone voiced shock or surprise at this development.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Mar 2009)

Of course the whiners will say his treatment at Gitmo caused him to take up arms against the West.... :


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Mar 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We have not found a way to rehabilitate jihadists.



Yeah we have....it's a vigorous course of mineral therapy, pyrotechnically injected... :sniper:


----------



## Journeyman (12 Mar 2009)

He's hardly alone, and he won't remotely be the last. They were picked-up because their actions were obviously suspect. 

Abu Sayyaf al-Shihri  (aka Said Ali al-Shihri), the guy who organized the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Sana (Yemen's capital), was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007. Following the merger of al-Qaida organizations in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, this former-Gitmo detainee is now the D/Comd of AQAP (al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula).

Figure he learned his AQ command abilities while a prisoner? Nope, he had them all along. 

These terrorists are now being released -- there has been no US efforts at rehabilitation (no blame assigned; it wasn't part of their mandate) -- and now these shitheads are continuing on with their al-Qaida efforts.

Surprised?


----------



## ltmaverick25 (12 Mar 2009)

The part that is surprising to me is that they are being released in the first place.  Completely counter productive.  And just look at the few examples discussed here.  Were not talking about bottom ringers, these guys are part of the leadership.  It is criminal to release these guys when you are still busy fighting a war on terror.

In an absolute worst case scenario one could always declare them POWs and then hold them indefinitly until the war is over.


----------



## geo (12 Mar 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> In an absolute worst case scenario one could always declare them POWs and then hold them indefinitly until the war is over.



Do you really think this war will ever be completely "over".
Take a look at what is going on in Northern Ireland - everyone thought the "troubles" were behind them and.... POOF!... they're back again.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Do you really think this war will ever be completely "over".
> Take a look at what is going on in Northern Ireland - everyone thought the "troubles" were behind them and.... POOF!... they're back again.



Because in both instances, it only takes a few extremists to get the fire lit again.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> He's hardly alone, and he won't remotely be the last. They were picked-up because their actions were obviously suspect .... Figure he learned his AQ command abilities while a prisoner? Nope, he had them all along.



Curious on your take and that of others - even if they MAY have been closer to the bottom of the pyramid when they went into GTMO, how critical would having been there be in increasing their cred (and, let's face it, discipline and toughness from making it through the regime) among other bad guys?  No matter where buddy was upon capture, "time in" could equal power capital within the organization when they return home.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (12 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Do you really think this war will ever be completely "over".
> Take a look at what is going on in Northern Ireland - everyone thought the "troubles" were behind them and.... POOF!... they're back again.



I never said I thought the war would ever be entirely over.  I just said they could hold on to them as POWs until the war is over...

Meaning, if they wanted to hold on to these guys indefinitly, calling them POWs would make the most sence.  You usually dont turn POWs back until its over, thus giving you a great reason for keeping them captive as long as you want without the same kind of pressure to force them to stand trial by a court system that likely wont get it right and release these guys back out there.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Mar 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Curious on your take and that of others - even if they MAY have been closer to the bottom of the pyramid when they went into GTMO, how critical would having been there be in increasing their cred (and, let's face it, discipline and toughness from making it through the regime) among other bad guys?  No matter where buddy was upon capture, "time in" could equal power capital within the organization when they return home.


True -- theoretically. But in this particular case there's strong justification for believing that he was reasonably high up before, and he met a particular AQAP requirement, which made him suitable for that position.

If his previous stature was correct, of course, it begs the question of why he was released in the first place.   _~shrug~_


----------



## NL_engineer (12 Mar 2009)

I think the US should build a rehabilitation center in Texas, it should have a low fence, and no outside facing guards, and located off a highway with signs identifying the rehabilitationees to the public  ;D

I think that with the public's help they could be rehabilitated  ;D


----------



## HollywoodHitman (13 Mar 2009)

Being held at Gitmo and released probably elevates them in their organisations...Like a gucci course or something....


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Mar 2009)

One would hope that one or two of these guys has been turned.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (13 Mar 2009)

Thats always possible.  Its not like they were released in the new Obama love affair, or released by Canada's liberals.  It was the Bush administration.  Its still hard to beleive any of them could be turned though, not unless they had something to gain by it, the question is what?


----------



## gun runner (18 Mar 2009)

Couldn't they take these bastards out behind the shack, put one in the ear and save the tax payers a couple of hundred thousand dollars? Nope they send 'em back to the sandbox, and now we have one more lunatic to hunt down and eradicate. Nice. Ubique


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2009)

gun runner said:
			
		

> Couldn't they take these bastards out behind the shack, put one in the ear and save the tax payers a couple of hundred thousand dollars? Nope they send 'em back to the sandbox, and now we have one more lunatic to hunt down and eradicate. Nice. Ubique



Clearly, although many think along the same terms as you ...

That would be murder - plain and simple. It is precisely because we do not do things like _that_ (_even_ in a lunatical manner) ourselves that makes us better than the enemy. We fight the good fight - and we fight it right.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (18 Mar 2009)

Releasing our enemies so they can kill us another day hardly qualifies as fighting the fight right in my view.


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Releasing our enemies so they can kill us another day hardly qualifies as fighting the fight right in my view.



So _that_ justifies summary executions?  :

My reference was to the ethical and moral standards we maintain as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions in the way we professional soldiers conduct ourselves as opposed to _them_.

I hardly think that summarily executing someone - even an enemy - behind the garden shed qualifies as "fighting the good fight the right way"; in fact, some of us professionals would find such an act lunatical itself.    War is hell, but it's the battlefield where soldiers fight the _Just War._

Ergo the (BIG) difference between us and them. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp. I've faith that one day ... Mr Taliban will get his due.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (18 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So _that_ justifies summary executions?  :
> 
> My reference was to the ethical and moral standards we maintain as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions in the way we professional soldiers conduct ourselves as opposed to _them_.
> 
> ...



I know exactly what you were trying to say, its pretty self explanatory.  However, as righteous as we may try to be on the battlefield certainly does not mean we are fightin the war the right way, hence my comment.  Unless the guy was turned, letting him lose to kill our guys is a fundamental mistake, and in my view is morally just as bad as what you are arguing against.  Releasing this guy is akin to murdering our own.  Completely unaceptable.


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I know exactly what you were trying to say, its pretty self explanatory.  However, as righteous as we may try to be on the battlefield certainly does not mean we are fightin the war the right way, hence my comment.  Unless the guy was turned, letting him lose to kill our guys is a fundamental mistake, and in my view is morally just as bad as what you are arguing against.  Releasing this guy is akin to murdering our own.  Completely unaceptable.



And, let me be VERY clear ...

MY comment was in regards to his suggestion of summary execution. Period.

Your trying to convince me of what now? 

It's the United States. Someone who shouldn't have been released from Gitmo was. At least they *have* a Gitmo. Do you presume to give the US credit for that?? Or just shit on them for a wrong move with this guy?


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Mar 2009)

Well, last time he was captured, this time make sure he is dust when the time is right, as in take him and others out with him at OUR leisure.

Just my humble train of thought.

OWDU


----------



## ltmaverick25 (18 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, let me be VERY clear ...
> 
> MY comment was in regards to his suggestion of summary execution. Period.
> 
> ...



You make alot of unfounded assumptions here...

I am not trying to convince you of anything.  I am well aware that your responce was to someone else, however, I chose to play on your use of words "we fight it right" to make a point of my own.  Which, is to say that I do not think we can be fighting right if we release these people back into the fight against us and killing our guys all over again.

There is more then one connotation to "we fight it right".  I chose to target a different connotation then you did.  Obviously you are talking about morality in warfare.  I am not.  I am talking about functional aspects, which is an altogether different thing.

Now lets talk about the American issue you just raised.  For the most part I am in support of the way the Americans have decided to deal with the larger issue of detainees and Gitmo ect...  I know I know, Im a Canadian, im not supposed to say that...  But regardless, thats how I feel.  They had it right, though others may argue that thats not "fighting it right".  Unfortunately, due to political pressure on the Bush administration, and now, the new stance of Obama, they will no longer have it right in my opinion.  Overal operational effectiveness in the war on terror is now being sacrificed, but, others will be happier because "were doing it right".  I think that is a mistake.  But am not an anti american, nor am I anti Bush.  

I used your play on words to make a different point.  I didnt use it to attack you, or to convince you of anything.  I am simply adding my own thoughts to this discussion.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Mar 2009)

Is being anti-bush against the guidelines here?


----------



## R. Jorgensen (18 Mar 2009)

I overheard this from a Commissionaire at the Passport Office, after reading/hearing about this case.

It is only a theory on how a GITMO detainee can become a high-ranked official amongst the Taliban/al-Qaeda.

"The Taliban probably think that their capture is just one step closer to invading the American homeland..."

That's all I heard.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Mar 2009)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090318/us_nm/us_guantanamo_holder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.

Holder, who was chosen by President Barack Obama to lead the administration's efforts to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba within a year, said the review of what to do with each of the prisoners had begun.

About 240 terrorism suspects, including suspected planners of the September 11 attacks, are being held in the prison. Many have been detained for seven years without charges and some were subjected to interrogation techniques denounced by critics as torture.

The administration faces intense political resistance to the idea of bringing the prisoners to the United States as part of closing the detention camp. The administration seeks to transfer some detainees to Europe or other countries while freeing others.

Holder told reporters at the Justice Department that the administration's review, made on a case-by-case basis, would determine whether the prisoners need to be put on trial or whether they can be released.

"For those who are in that second category, who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have. Among them is the possibility that we could release them into this country," he said.

Holder said it was possible the 17 Chinese Muslims who have been held for years at Guantanamo, and two or three others prisoners, could be freed in the United States.

The 17 members of the Uighur ethic group have been cleared for release but have nonetheless remained at Guantanamo while the United States tries to find a country willing to take them. The U.S. government has said it cannot return them to China because they would face persecution there.

"We've been trying to come up with places for them," Holder said of the Uighurs. Their lawyers have asked Obama to bring them to the United States.

Holder met earlier this week with European Union leaders, and urged them to take some of the Guantanamo prisoners. They questioned why they should take some of the detainees if the United States does not make similar efforts to take some.

The European leaders asked for the information the United States has on the prisoners, including details about their backgrounds.

Holder called that a reasonable request and said making the information available to the European countries could help ease their concerns.

He said the administration was looking at the possibility of putting some of the Guantanamo prisoners on trial in U.S. courts. "My guess is that some of those people would be tried in" the U.S. court system, he said.


----------



## Pointer (21 Mar 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> You make alot of unfounded assumptions here...
> 
> I am not trying to convince you of anything.  I am well aware that your responce was to someone else, however, I chose to play on your use of words "we fight it right" to make a point of my own.  Which, is to say that I do not think we can be fighting right if we release these people back into the fight against us and killing our guys all over again.
> 
> ...



Throwing people in gulags isn't exactly coherent with a capital-letter-lofty-ideals campaign of "Freedom, Liberty, and Truth" or whatever saccharine rhetoric people banter about these days. 

If you're going to wax poetic about western liberal ideals, you can hardly go around playing 1984 at the same time if you expect anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Mar 2009)

During WW2 both the bad guys and allies operated POW camps to house their captured prisoners. This war is no different in that regard.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Mar 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> During WW2 both the bad guys and allies operated POW camps to house their captured prisoners. This war is no different in that regard.


That's true, and as far as I'm concerned that should still be the case.
Having said that, there is a segment of our society that likes to find fault and point fingers at us...but never at our enemies.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (22 Mar 2009)

This goes back to the issue of treating them as POWs. We dont treat them as POWs because we want to lock them up and never give them back ect...  Ok, thats great and I support it fully, but if you arent going to do that, or you are going to cave on that position, then use the term POW.  Once you do that, you are allowed to keep them until hostilities cease.  In this case it could be a very long time.

The public can complain all it wants about detainees, but they cant say crap about POWs.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Mar 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> The public can complain all it wants about detainees, but they cant say crap about POWs.



Its not the public that complains. Its people like our beloved Jack and Olivia....they don't seem to understand a whole lot about anything.


----------



## Pointer (23 Mar 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> During WW2 both the bad guys and allies operated POW camps to house their captured prisoners. This war is no different in that regard.



Except that the US doesn't recognize the people in GITMO as POWs, nor do they treat them as such.  Picking someone up, shipping them off to a secluded camp, torturing them, and trying them in kangaroo courts so you can imprison them indefinitely under the auspices of a poorly defined "war" isn't POW treatment.

It's interesting how willing people are to suspend rights and behave like brownshirted goosesteppers when it lends them an advantage (and they can do so under the banner of truth, freedom, liberty, justice, honesty, friendliness, good-neighbourliness, optimism, amicability, puppies, flowers, the laughter of children frolicking through fields of daisies, etc.).


----------



## ltmaverick25 (23 Mar 2009)

I dont think its quite so cut and dry as that...

How do you impose the same rights as we have in our society on people from a society that does not play by the same rules, and in essence wants to destroy our society?  Our rights and our values system is a wonderful thing, and it works very well (usually anyway) for our society and culture.  You simply cannot play by the same rules when faced with an opponent that does not care about our values system.

This war isnt about proving we are better.  It never was, nor should it ever be.  This war is about preventing "scumbags" as Gen Hillier so ably put it, from being able to cause harm to elements within our society.

This war was never about morals, it was about _national interests_.  There is no warm and fuzzy in that term.


----------



## armyvern (23 Mar 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I dont think its quite so cut and dry as that...
> 
> How do you impose the same rights as we have in our society on people from a society that does not play by the same rules, and in essence wants to destroy our society?  Our rights and our values system is a wonderful thing, and it works very well (usually anyway) for our society and culture.  You simply cannot play by the same rules when faced with an opponent that does not care about our values system.
> 
> ...



Well, being that Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions ...

you'd better play by our rules, not the enemies.

Doesn't matter who or what your enemy does.


----------



## gun runner (23 Mar 2009)

ARMY VERN, my comment was just a sort of release, I guess. I never expected to have you get bent out of shape for my comment. My justification for writing that is that these DETAINEES are just itching to get back out there and FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT, against us, the Aussies, Brits, Yanks, etc... . I was just surmising that if these people had been dealt with(prosecuted,tried,etc,) in good time, at Gitmo, then none opf this would have to happen. But it didn't, and now this jacka$$ is back there, staring down the sight of his rifle,AT OUR TROOPS. I want you to take a deep breath and visualize that picture for a second.... then try to explain how this all came to pass, to his/her parents as they recieve their childs body at Trenton. Ubique


----------



## armyvern (23 Mar 2009)

gun runner said:
			
		

> ARMY VERN, my comment was just a sort of release, I guess. I never expected to have you get bent out of shape for my comment. My justification for writing that is that these DETAINEES are just itching to get back out there and FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT, against us, the Aussies, Brits, Yanks, etc... . I was just surmising that if these people had been dealt with(prosecuted,tried,etc,) in good time, at Gitmo, then none opf this would have to happen. But it didn't, and now this jacka$$ is back there, staring down the sight of his rifle,AT OUR TROOPS. I want you to take a deep breath and visualize that picture for a second.... then try to explain how this all came to pass, to his/her parents as they recieve their childs body at Trenton. Ubique



One of my friends was on that tarmac today ... doing that very thing.

UBIQUE


----------



## Journeyman (23 Mar 2009)

gun runner said:
			
		

> ARMY VERN, .....I want you to take a deep breath and visualize that picture for a second.... then try to explain how this all came to pass....


Gutsy target selection for your lecture, gun runner.

op:

For what it's worth, there was a damn cold wind across the tarmac this afternoon...and with four troops coming home, it wasn't a short service...which was pre-emptively somewhat teary-eyed when several members of Cpl Crooks' family came to the Trenton Timmies where we RV to thank _us_ for coming out, and have their pictures taken with our motly crew.   :'(


----------



## ltmaverick25 (24 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, being that Canada is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions ...
> 
> you'd better play by our rules, not the enemies.
> 
> Doesn't matter who or what your enemy does.



Declaring them POWs and holding them captive until the war comes to an official conclusion does follow the rules of the Geneva Convention...


----------



## armyvern (24 Mar 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Declaring them POWs and holding them captive until the war comes to an official conclusion does follow the rules of the Geneva Convention...



Look up the definition of POW (I'm, for one, pretty sure they don't meet the definition); and, in the case of the the Taliban and  Al-Qaeda, the day after the war reaches it's "official conclusion" and you let them out --- I bet dollars to donuts the "war" starts again the very next day ... because they can.

Your proposal does nothing that the current status doesn't also do; it also does not prevent further fighting by those "enemy combatants" after their release (via whatever means that release happens). Nice thought though - in an ideal world where your enemy also follows the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, that's not the case in this war.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Look up the definition of POW (I'm, for one, pretty sure they don't meet the definition);............



On that note, if we look at what is said about armed persons, not fitting the definition of uniformed combatants, we will find that "execution" may be fitting.  Do we want to encarcerate them, or execute them?


----------



## geo (24 Mar 2009)

Taliban & AQ ... are comparable to the IRA.
What are your views on the new "troubles" that have happened over the last month.

If we are to treat our prisonners as POWs, then I contend that the TB & AQ are bound to take prisonners AND treat them as POWs - allow for inspections by the Red Cross/Crescent, etc, etc, etc.

The TB & AQ jihadists will enter villages & indiscriminately kill local tribesmen who do not toady up to their rule by thuggery.  Killing men, women & children is of no particular concern to them.... that is not the kind of behaviour of people who deserve to get POW treatment.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Mar 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On that note, if we look at what is said about armed persons, not fitting the definition of uniformed combatants, we will find that "execution" may be fitting.  Do we want to encarcerate them, or execute them?



As hard as this is to say, we MUST hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the AQ and Taliban continue to behave in such a fashion (hacking heads off, murderering, etc) then once captured, put them on trial, much as we did for the Serbs, the Nazis etc. 
Then incarcerate them for a very long time with NO access to the media.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (24 Mar 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Look up the definition of POW (I'm, for one, pretty sure they don't meet the definition); and, in the case of the the Taliban and  Al-Qaeda, the day after the war reaches it's "official conclusion" and you let them out --- I bet dollars to donuts the "war" starts again the very next day ... because they can.
> 
> Your proposal does nothing that the current status doesn't also do; it also does not prevent further fighting by those "enemy combatants" after their release (via whatever means that release happens). Nice thought though - in an ideal world where your enemy also follows the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, that's not the case in this war.



You are missing the essence of what I was trying to get at.  Perhaps this is my fault for not spelling it out more clearly...  The Bush style detainee system, although functionally sound, and effective, was not palatable to certain elements of society because keeping people locked up permanently without trial or perhaps unfair trials doesnt sit well in happy perfect world democracy land.  However, you call them POWs, thus allowing you to keep them until the war ends, and the detractors no longer have a leg to stand on.  You see, this is a war that I dont beleive will ever fully come to an end.  There will always be some sort of Taliban or AQ presence, and as long as there is, you dont declare an end to the official war on terror.

If you follow this line of thinking, our detainees, now POWs, would die of old age in prison.

My suggestion, is meant as a loop hole if you will.  Give em a different name, and all of a sudden you can hang on to them as long as you want.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (24 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Taliban & AQ ... are comparable to the IRA.
> What are your views on the new "troubles" that have happened over the last month.
> 
> If we are to treat our prisonners as POWs, then I contend that the TB & AQ are bound to take prisonners AND treat them as POWs - allow for inspections by the Red Cross/Crescent, etc, etc, etc.
> ...



Beleive me I agree with you.  My proposed solution is by no means a perfect one, rather, the lesser of too many evils.  If the decision were purely up to me, I would develop a solution with a great deal of effectiveness, and absolutely zero degree of political correctness  ;D

But unfortnately, that does not strike me as realistic...


----------

