http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24808102/

I thought this case pretty well summed up the division of opinion in the U.S. today. On the one hand, this guy came to the U.S. with a valid visa, had committed no real crime that I can tell(Conspiracy to commit mass murder would be hard to make stick I think), yet he was picked up in Nov. 2001 and has been held ever since (7 years) without charges or even proper legal representation according to the U.S. constitution.

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear this guy came here as an enemy combatant for a group we are at war with (Al Queda), was looking to kill a lot of innocent American civilians, and that war is not yet over. Does it make sense to return enemy combatants to the enemy mid war, so they can come back at us again, especially in this type of war?

Not an easy question to answer in my opinion. So I ask, what do you think we should do with this guy(and people like him)?

I believe in Habeas Corpus. I'll avoid a long Keith Olbermann rant, but he needs to have a trial, then either convicted or released.

I'm guessing by virtue of the fact they haven't tried him already, they don't have enough to properly convict him in a U.S. court. That said, if they release and deport him, and his fingerprints are later found on IEDs that kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, you are OK with that?

You really can't use something that only happened in your own imagination of the distant future to smugly "win" an argument.

Honestly, I don't think the argument is winable. It is a quandry. We are at war with a non-nation state. If we were in a conventional war with a nation state, we certainly wouldn't release captured enemy combatants before the war was over. Given the non-conventional means by which these people are waging war, with "civilians" being the enemy combatants, it puts our administration in the awkward position of capturing and holding "civilians". Since the Bush administration gets so much flack for some of the effective techniques they have used to deal with the issue, I was wanted to hear someone else's "better" idea. Simply calling the potential future I presented as "imagination" doesn't address the very real problem at all.

No case? Deport him. Governments who hold people without charges are tyrannical.

Second - legally change the guy's name. Nine syllables is just too much.

Originally Posted by seolman

No case? Deport him. Governments who hold people without charges are tyrannical.

Very true. Would you be OK with deporting him to some place that doesn't mind being "Tyrannical"? Some of these fleabags that were released from Gitmo and deported have already popped back up in action in Iraq.

Originally Posted by seolman

Second - legally change the guy's name. Nine syllables is just too much.

Haha. So you are saying name him Jimmy and send him back to the middle east? I thought you were against cruel and unusual punishment!

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'm guessing by virtue of the fact they haven't tried him already, they don't have enough to properly convict him in a U.S. court. That said, if they release and deport him, and his fingerprints are later found on IEDs that kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, you are OK with that?

Where was he from by the way? If hes tried and released here, I have a feeling the Saudis wouldn't be so lenient.

Perhaps so. I know those who bombed the U.S. Cole in Yemen were pretty much just released, probably with a pat on the back, a hand shake, and a "Nicely Done". Maybe they should be turned over to the Masad. They have always shown restraint when dealing with terrorists /chuckle.

We release people that go on to commit more crimes all the time..

Charge him, try him, or let him go.. For that matter, let them all go or charge them..

let me guess...hmmm kill him?LOL

Originally Posted by cbwm

Perhaps so. I know those who bombed the U.S. Cole in Yemen were pretty much just released, probably with a pat on the back, a hand shake, and a "Nicely Done". Maybe they should be turned over to the Masad. They have always shown restraint when dealing with terrorists /chuckle.

Why didn't they do what they have done with others: illegally fly them through other countries air space and have the ex-communists in Eastern Europe torture him.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Simply calling the potential future I presented as "imagination" doesn't address the very real problem at all.

No, but part of the very real problem is people getting carried away with themselves and losing sight of reality. What you wrote was "That said, if they release and deport him, and his fingerprints are later found on IEDs that kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, you are OK with that?" You imagined a particular sequence of events, then apparently convinced yourself they had actually happened, and used that as if it were a trump card to berate Russel with. You can't do that.

Whatever very real problem you want to address ... you need to do it frankly. You can speculate 'til the cows come home, tell us all about what you think important risks we need to address are. But you can't act like ECSuite_Russel did something wrong because you can see something being possible.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

... and used that as if it were a trump card to berate Russel with. ... But you can't act like ECSuite_Russel did something wrong because you can see something being possible.

If it came across as berating, I apologize. I certainly didn't write it with that intent, and even now as I re-read it, I find it a bit difficult to see the barb. Regardless, I stand by the question, even if it is based on a hypothetical. Those risks are the risks being weighed by those in charge of Guantanamo. There have been some Guantanamo detainees which were released for lack of evidence who later resurfaced in the battlefields of Iraq, so the question is not purely hypothetical.

Charge and prosecute, or release and deport has been the unanimous response on this thread, and though I think I personally agree (55% percent of me), I have yet to see anyone address why, in every previous war we have waged, it was perfectly acceptable to hold prisoners without trial until the war came to an end, and in this case it is not.

Originally Posted by cbwm

If it came across as berating, I apologize. I certainly didn't write it with that intent, and even now as I re-read it, I find it a bit difficult to see the barb. Regardless, I stand by the question, even if it is based on a hypothetical. Those risks are the risks being weighed by those in charge of Guantanamo. There have been some Guantanamo detainees which were released for lack of evidence who later resurfaced in the battlefields of Iraq, so the question is not purely hypothetical.

Charge and prosecute, or release and deport has been the unanimous response on this thread, and though I think I personally agree (55% percent of me), I have yet to see anyone address why, in every previous war we have waged, it was perfectly acceptable to hold prisoners without trial until the war came to an end, and in this case it is not.

Don't worry about me, I know the futility of arguing on the internet, so I don't take it too seriously. Thanks for Sticking up for me though Forrest. What's that old meme.. "arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still.."

To your second paragraph CBWM, this isn't like any previous war, it will just keep being fought indefinitely.

I don't think there can be a real winner or loser, Iraq and Afghanistan are already showing us that even if we conquer, I mean liberate, a nation. That our enemy is too amorphous to be wiped out. We're combating an ideology not a government, and as V said, ideas are bullet proof. Even to take it in the complete opposite direction, if we withdrew from the middle east, physically and influence wise and some how figured out what exactly it is they want and gave it to them, would it end? I don't think it would, some new affront would be invented and they'd just keep fighting.

When you say hold until the end of the war, you're saying hold him forever.

Originally Posted by ECSuite_Russell

To your second paragraph CBWM, this isn't like any previous war, it will just keep being fought indefinitely.

I don't think there can be a real winner or loser, Iraq and Afghanistan are already showing us that even if we conquer, I mean liberate, a nation. That our enemy is too amorphous to be wiped out. We're combating an ideology not a government, and as V said, ideas are bullet proof. Even to take it in the complete opposite direction, if we withdrew from the middle east, physically and influence wise and some how figured out what exactly it is they want and gave it to them, would it end? I don't think it would, some new affront would be invented and they'd just keep fighting.

When you say hold until the end of the war, you're saying hold him forever.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will likely not go on forever, though I think a war with Iran is in the works. While I agree that our fight against terrorism will likely go on forever, we are actually at war with insurgencies in two nation states we conquered, I mean liberated. In as far as the insurgencies in both countries have Al Queda participating, one can quite literally lump all of Al Queda into the enemy combatant category.

I look at this more as the natural evolution of war. Guerilla warfare was a huge change in how wars were fought, in comparison to the set peice battle format where forces lined up face to face and slaughtered each other in an "civilized" format. It was created to allow a smaller sized force to overcome a larger, more powerful, more organized force. I'm not talking about terrorist criminals like Tim McVeigh, who are not part of a larger organization, but rather are part of the "Idea" you say is bulletproof. I'm talking about countries with a bone to pick with the U.S. but, given the U.S. super power status, would never overtly attack. Its easy to somewhat distance yourself from the forces training in your country to carry out attacks on non-hardened and civilian targets in a country you dislike(the links from the Taliban to Al Queda actually werent that blurry).

Anyway, if this is the evolution of war, it needs to be treated as such. If this is just organized crime, it needs to be treated as such(The rules are obviously very different). The blurry lines play to the favor of those who wish to perpetrate these acts. Syria's assassination of the stable leadership elements of Lebanon come to mind.