world

Released Gitmo detainee now al-Qaida commander in Yemen

38 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

The announcement from the militant site

On my blog it says that I am "the Right Hand of God". Stay tuned for AP writer Maggie Michael to write an article suggesting its absolute truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But he can feel the hope and change all the way from Yemen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Al-Shihri was released by the U.S. in 2007 to the Saudi government for rehabilitation. " Well, I guess being that he moved up in his career, they rehabilitated him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the dilemma facing President Barack Obama"

No dilemma about it - closing Gitmo is absolutely the politically correct thing to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "No dilemma about it - closing Gitmo is absolutely the politically correct thing to do."

Quick question for ya... when was this guy released? Was it in the last three days? No? Well then I guess bush released this criminal, didn't he?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"According to the Pentagon at least 18 former Guantanamo detainees have “returned to the fight” and another 43 are suspected of resuming terrorist activities." This right wing claim has been discredited. Why repeat erroneous information?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"According to the Pentagon at least 18 former Guantanamo detainees have “returned to the fight” and another 43 are suspected of resuming terrorist activities." This right wing claim has been discredited.

By whom?

CAIR?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm kind of wondering why we aren't hearing any condemnation from "the right" about how bush didn't keep us all safe when he allowed this guy to go free.

Heh.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow. I guess the pointy heads at the Nation and Counterpunch were wrong:

"The story of the second aid worker, 28-year old Sa'id al-Shihri, was unknown until the Pentagon released its new batch of documents in September. According to the government's own "evidence," al-Shihri decided to do charity work in Pakistan after hearing a speech by a sheikh in his local mosque. Twelve days after 9/11, he flew to Pakistan, and then "traveled with an Afghan driver, another Saudi man who worked with the Red Crescent, and a member from the Saudi embassy in Pakistan," in a vehicle taking supplies to a refugee camp near the Afghan border between Spin Boldak and Quetta. Presumably wounded in a bombing raid (though this was not stated), he was taken to a Red Crescent hospital in Quetta, where he and four others stayed for a month and a half, "awaiting a plane to come and take them back to Saudi Arabia. However, when they were moved from the hospital they were put on a plane and taken to Kandahar," to the US prison at the airport, where al-Shihri stayed for ten days before being flown to Guantánamo. To counter this detailed and non-military explanation for al-Shihri's presence on the Afghan border, the authorities managed to come up with nothing more than a few wildly tangential allegations: that he "trained in urban warfare at the Libyan Camp north of Kabul," and, even more improbably, that, according to "an individual," he "instigated him and another person to assassinate a writer," based on a fatwa issued by a radical sheikh."

http://www.counterpunch.org/worthington11142007.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm kind of wondering why we're not hearing any concern from "the left" about closing a facility where we're keeping dangerous criminals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Will they be making a documentary about him? I wonder how it will do at Cannes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "I'm kind of wondering why we're not hearing any concern from "the left" about closing a facility where we're keeping dangerous criminals."

It really is humourous to watch you guys try and use this against Obama and in defense of keeping Gitmo open when in fact it is proof AGAINST the things you hope for, and proof of how stupid your former president was and how badly he failed. You're saying that torture is okay, and this prison is needed, when the fact that this man went through bush's (and your) process and is where he is shows just how much your ideal system failed. What's more, I have little if any doubt that the man grew even more angry and bitter in this system and now has more fuel for his fire, proving your own system is detrimental to what you purport it protects.

Finally, you have no proof you're keeping 'dangerous criminals' there at all; you simply believe they are because they were captured (or technically kidnapped) and put there by your government. In fact, they have received no trials, aside from the two now in the process, and so there 'proof' whatsoever. No proof they are innocent? very true -- so put them on trial now and prove either way beyond a reasonable doubt. What I CAN prove is that the system did not work the way it was under bush, and hence the man is where he is an a commander in Yemen to boot -- with the support of even more people due to his 'troubles'.

In effect, sarge, you defeat your own argument with the usual ease.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: What's more, I have little if any doubt that the man grew even more angry and bitter in this system and now has more fuel for his fire, proving your own system is detrimental to what you purport it protects.

Ah, so maybe before he was a bit wishy-washy about slaughtering innocents for Bin Laden, but now he's really, really committed to it. We can blame the "really, really" part on the US. ;) If he were a character in an RPG we could add 5 points to his overall "commitment to terrorism" score.

Sorry smith but you tend to rely on too many nebulous positions. I could easily make the claim that his time at Gitmo rattled him and although he's still with Bin Laden he probably isn't as committed and probably wouldn't take the same extreme measures as he did before. Then I'd toss that in your lap to disprove it.

Have fun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "Sorry smith but you tend to rely on too many nebulous positions."

As opposed to simply being angry at Obama and stating that this man is proof that he is wrong? Now THAT is what you might call nebulous, given that you guys are for incarceration of people without trial and what not, and yet you still call them 'dangerous criminals'.

I'll dummy it down a little for those of you having a hard time grasping what's happening:

You have no proof the men in the prison are dangerous, all you have is proof that a man who was IN the system that bush instituted got through it and is now in a position of authority for Al Qaida.

None of you seem to be arguing against this man at all, merely wringing your hands at Obama for the man's existence (despite him having been released in 2007 and 'reformed' in the US ally Saudia Arabia). Again, more proof that the system as it is did not work, and that Obama is 100% right in shutting it down.

Give them trials and close the place. Period. Keeping it open has clearly done very little, if anything, as the man in question seems just fine and dandy and in charge now of AQ in Yemen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it weren't for the torture, would you be willing to leave the camp open?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: If they were tried and convicted, I would be willing to have the place kept open as a prison where people served out their sentences. As a 'camp' for keeping people merely suspected of terrorist activities and/or planning, the answer is a resounding 'NO', even when the torture is taken away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to the Pentagon at least 18 former Guantanamo detainees have “returned to the fight” and another 43 are suspected of resuming terrorist activities.

Thanks George. Perhaps if you had gone with "law and order" instead of "law of the jungle", the score would be better.

Now instead of hearing the old story of how "an American gave me chocolate and cigarettes", we get to hear how a guy wants to kill us because an American tortured him and held him in uncertain legal limbo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: As opposed to simply being angry at Obama and stating that this man is proof that he is wrong? Now THAT is what you might call nebulous, given that you guys are for incarceration of people without trial and what not, and yet you still call them 'dangerous criminals'.

Great! Too bad I didn't say any of that.

You have no proof the men in the prison are dangerous, all you have is proof that a man who was IN the system that bush instituted got through it and is now in a position of authority for Al Qaida.

Great! Too bad I didn't say any of that.

None of you seem to be arguing against this man at all, merely wringing your hands at Obama for the man's existence (despite him having been released in 2007 and 'reformed' in the US ally Saudia Arabia). Again, more proof that the system as it is did not work, and that Obama is 100% right in shutting it down.

Great! Too bad I didn't say any of that.

Smith...really. Too often I find that you respond to my posts by countering arguments that Helter or Sarge make. Imagine if I took your post and responded with Betzee's arguments and said, "you guys" to somehow rope you into the argument. Now try responding to that...

Honestly, it's getting to be a bit creepy how you seem to think you can apply arguments from many different people into one response to any of us. You really have developed an "us vs. them" mentality, and it's gotten to the point where you respond to me, someone who voted for Obama, as an Obama hater. The situation is really getting out of hand.

If you want to respond to me then please respond to my words and don't use my posts to continue your proxy war against Helter. Like I said, responding to you becomes impossible when you're using arguments that I never made. I have no interest in debating Helter's positions for him just so you can have another person to argue with and repeat the same words that you've already written to him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/01/23-8

These numbers have been disputed.

Most of these POWs are just that, simple POWs, not somebody special or a hign level POW. There are 5 or 7 high level and a few underlings.

How long do you keep them locked up, forever? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: "you have no proof the men in the prison are dangerous"

Try re-reading the headline here, Smith. A released Gitmo detainee is now an al-Qaida commander. Al Qaida is a dangerous organiation. The men in Gitmo are indeed dangerous, Smith. Admit it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spuds - You don't really believe that the vast majority of the Gitmo prisoners are not dangerous, do you? And saying that saying these guys are dangerous means the majority of U.S. servicemembers are rapists is just plain silly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well goes to show you that the Bush policy was totally flawed. If his policy was better thought out this guy would never have been allowed to leave. But we now see Bush was in fact not keeping us safer.

Glad that we have a Commander and Chief who looks like he is going to do a far better job than Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe - "Glad we have a Commander and ( in ) Chief who looks like he is going to do a far better job than Bush"

On what do you base this, Joe?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "Smith...really. Too often I find that you respond to my posts by countering arguments that Helter or Sarge make. Imagine if I took your post and responded with Betzee's arguments and said, "you guys" to somehow rope you into the argument. Now try responding to that..."

You're right, I do do that to you in particular, for which I apologize. In some cases, though, and I believe I have stated that 'I don't mean you in particular', I am not speaking DIRECTLY to you but at people who use the same line of argument. What I often do is write a person's name into the text, then paste in the argument I want to touch on, then comment directly on it. After that, I switch to more general topics on the thread at hand (often in order to move back to the thread to avoid it being simply attacking the person or his/her comments). In the case of the above post, though, while the second and third parts you pasted in your own comment were indeed directed at all such people who fall into the group I was addressing, the first was directly at you and I included you in said group. I didn't actually quote you as saying any of those things, though, I will point out. Again, my bad. I guess from now on I should formulate my comments as something like:

SuperLib: this and that

For those who think...: more widespread comment, etc.

As for lumping me in with Betzee, her posts tend to be a bit more objective and better sounding (in some cases... hehe), so I wouldn't feel too bad at all!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: 'smithinjapan: "you have no proof the men in the prison are dangerous" Try re-reading the headline here, Smith. A released Gitmo detainee is now an al-Qaida commander. Al Qaida is a dangerous organiation. The men in Gitmo are indeed dangerous, Smith. Admit it.'

sarge... read your comment, in which you suggest I 're-read' the title. If I'm not mistaken, the title reads 'RELEASED Gitmo detainee now al-Qaida Commander in Yemen', so.... do tell me how that makes him a dangerous man in prison, sarge, if he's not IN prison. I just HAVE to post your boolean logic again, it's that funny!

"A released Gitmo detainee is now an al-Qaida commander. Al Qaida is a dangerous organiation. The men in Gitmo are indeed dangerous, Smith."

Excellent logic, sarge... except that you can't even understand that the man cannot possibly be a commander in Yemen and a dangerous man in Gitmo at the same time. I guess that makes your argument pretty much as off the wall as the formula you use to make it. Admit it.

Again, there is no proof the people in Gitmo NOW (not in Yemen NOW, after being released, which means they are not in Gitmo now -- for those who have trouble understanding simple physics) are dangerous, and only proof that a man who was in there while bush's systems were in place got through it and is now commander of the Yemen branch of Al-Qaida.

But go ahead, sarge, use the proof from all the trials of those in Gitmo to show us how many dangerous criminals there are.... ah wait... not of them have been given trials! Ah, and there is no proof they did anything wrong!! (aside from the two now on trial, of course).

So, it's simple, sarge, give them speedy trials and find them either guilty or not guilty. What's the problem in that? Why are you so against your own system of justice, and your own country's idea of morals?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aw, you know sarge, I just can't give this up, because you've given me the perfect proof that the system under bush did not work. If it did, this man would not be out and working as he is in Yemen right now. He would be in prison for crimes against the US, after a trial and conviction. On the other hand, if he were given a fair trial and found guilty, perhaps he would have been found guilty of consorting with terrorists, etc.

As it is, once again, you have a man who is NOW a terrorist (whether or not before, who knows?) who got out on bush's watch, and you are somehow blaming what Obama is doing for it... or at the very least using proof of bush's failure to validate Obama's reasons for wanting a quick but fair trial of the detainees before rightly closing the place down.

Thanks for playing, though. Next time try not to argue a point which proves your argument wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith ( 12:21 AM ) - "there is no proof the people in Gitmo NOW... are dangerous"

OK, so can we release them into Canada? I didn't think so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: I didn't answer. You can release them to their countries of origin, and if they are not allowed back, you need to find a place for them. If the Canadian government agrees, then fine, let them take some.

You haven't answered any of my questions or commented on the fact of how wrong you are. All you can do is post a non-rhetorical rhetorical question and quickly try and answer it yourself for fear of how someone might reply, and no doubt you log-off after and call it a day.

Once again, sarge... thank you for proving that Obama is right, and the system you have claimed is right over and over is in fact wrong. Your own "argument" did it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 10:50 PM JST - 24th January Joe - "Glad we have a Commander and ( in ) Chief who looks like he is going to do a far better job than Bush" On what do you base this, Joe?

Ok Sarge we shall begin with my reasoning,

Part 1, Bush doctrine

Well if I am not mistaken this man was released under the Bush Administration I am pretty sure that Clinton was not President when this man was captured.LOL

Ok ok serious now, the man had been held for 6 years before being handed over to the Saudi's for re-education. Upon graduation from this great program he moved to Yemen and became the leader of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

The part of this tale that kills me is that the Bush Administration released this man into the hands of the people who aided the 9/11 terrorist. I wonder who's name is stamped on his release form? I really wonder how many more of these real nice guys the Bush administration has also released.

This in itself proves that the Bush policy on Gitmo and prisoner detention was flawed to say the least. At worse it was criminal but of course I am not a legal scholar so I will not comment on that.

If were really fighting a war on terror as the Bush Administration claimed. Then why did he release a terrorist leader?

Part 2 Obama doctrine

Well to start Obama has begun by closing Gitmo and will most likely remove the flawed Bush tribunal system that released this man in the first place.

It appears that President Obama has begun to reverse the Bush Executive orders. Another clear sign that President Obama is heading in the right direction.

So it looks like President Obama is taking us on a better course in our war on terror. Hell we might even find out who else funded the 9/11 attacks on our nation. Hell he may even get or kill Bin Laden!

Looks like he is doing a better job than Bush. President Obama day 5...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Joe - Why is Obama keeping Bush's secretary of defense, Gates? I thought Bush's military policies were all wrong...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True but that was the man that came in to correct the first Secretary of Defense. Do you remember his name? Or have you tried to block his name out like the rest of us?

Now what was his name? Was if, the Man that knows? What was his name? Oh wait yes, I remember now, his name was Rummy. That man who tried to push the Bush doctrine so hard that he nearly destroyed our military.

If it was not for the media and pressure from the people Rummy would have been with Bush till the bitter end. Let us not forget that Gates has been working very hard to correct so many problems. I am glad that Gates is now the guy that knows what needs to be known rather than that other less than stellar SoD.

I wonder if anyone of us knows what Rummy knows because you would have to know what he knew to understand what is now known by those who know, do you know?LOL

BTW thank you for reminding us further of the Bush doctrines and the folks who promoted it.

Glad to see that Bush, Dick, Wolfie and Rummy will never again be able to harm our great nation. Hope they enjoy their retirement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Damn, sarge... you went down hard on this thread. Keep your chin up, though. Just because Obama is right to close down Gitmo and you yourself proved how badly bush was wrong to establish it in the first place, to torture, and keep people without trials, etc., is no reason to be so upset and lash out at the former.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmmm, I'm just hoping that there may be a bit of method in the madness.

We know they've been tortured at Gitmo, so who's to say they weren't put under to have GPS tracking grafted into their bodies somewhere to help guide a well-aimed missile at a later date?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: who's to say they weren't put under to have GPS tracking grafted into their bodies somewhere to help guide a well-aimed missile at a later date?

Brilliant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We know they've been tortured at Gitmo..."

We do?

Exactly how were they tortured?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Part 2 Obama doctrine Well to start Obama has begun by closing Gitmo and will most likely remove the flawed Bush tribunal system that released this man in the first place."

Wrong.

Obama has signed an executive order saying Gitmo will close. But the actual closure, trials and repatriation of the Islamo-fascists housed there is another matter altogether.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moderator can you edit out all these ad hominem attacks. They are at best offering very little in the way of intelligent discussion to the information disclosed in the article, at worst it is an infantile pissing contest between people who need to find a more appropriate forum.

Moderator: Better still, you take the lead and get the discussion back on a more mature level.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We do?

Exactly how were they tortured?"

It's common knowledge prisoners have given treatment tantamount to torture at Guantanamo. If you had been shackled in a fetal position for more than twenty four hours and been forced to defecate on yourself, you yourself might not be so readily living in Denial about it, nor condoning it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites