Comments on: Former Gitmo Inmate Now al Qaeda Leader

By: Franklin

Franklin — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:47:55 +0000

As James' previous posts have pointed out, even with these two guys, the actual confirmed "recidivism" rate (assuming we can prove they were bad guys in the first place) is extraordinarily low. Since we know the Pentagon's numbers of around 11% were pure fluff ("we released this guy and he turned around and called us doodoo heads"), but not knowing how many people did return to the fight without any evidence so far, we can still guesstimate that the rate is pretty dang low. Yeah, I don't want the worst of the worst set free. No duh. But I've always believed that it's better to let quite a few guilty people free than send away (and torture) one innocent person. And we have several confirmed cases of the latter.

By: Bootlegger

Bootlegger — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 03:26:49 +0000

Actually Michael, who's to say that these new AQ stars aren't double agents and these stories are cover? Ooops. Guess I blew that.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:39:31 +0000

While steve and odograph hit on one reason why these people may have been recruited post-imprisonment, I think a more likely explanation exists: Al Qaeda picked them for their publicity value. The fact that they are advertising their former imprisonment seems to re-enforce that idea.

If that is indeed, the case, we should definitely release the most incompetent prisons right away, the more of them Al Qaeda puts into leadership roles the better. We can even put suggestions in their ear about a political divide within Al Qaeda, one side being against their tribe or nationality, to implant some dissension in the ranks.

Heck, once we take out some senior level members we know associated with these prisons recently, we could let slip some "top secret" documents (on a disreputable website or course) suggesting that those released prisoners may have tracking/eavesdropping devices implanted, or are acting as double agents, and watch the infighting begin.

By: steve

steve — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:00:27 +0000

"Hmmm. But I thought all Republicans cared about was making government smaller? How do you do that while simultaneously undertaking a “blind and narrow pursuit of power”?!"

Republicans only talk about making government smaller. What they really do is decrease taxes and increase the size of government. Look at our debt when we have a Republican president in office since 1980.

Steve

By: odograph

odograph — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:32:16 +0000

BTW, as I read this I'm conscious of my own personality. If I'd been innocent and locked up in Gitmo for a few years, I might be pissed enough when I got out to act.

I'm not saying that happened here, but by my reading of human nature (and introspection) I think it is certain to happen in some cases.

By: odograph

odograph — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:30:27 +0000

This sentence is unbalanced James, because it uses "suspected" only at one end:

Are al Qaeda terrorists different than American citizens suspected of committing crimes?

Of course "terrorists" are different than "suspects."

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:18:00 +0000

There seems to be some question--or at least confusion--about whether al-Shihri completed the Saudi rehab course or, as CNN reported, fled it.

By: Big Bag of Wind .Com

Big Bag of Wind .Com — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:17:18 +0000

Obama's going to wish his campaign promise would just go away. His far-left base won't let him. I wonder how much he knew his promises were unrealistic before becoming president. And how much of an education he's just getting now. We conservatives don't have to get red-faced, not yet anyway. It's his political problem now. I predict he's not going to release the worst of the worse, or put them in our backyards. BTW, there's a liberal blog in my state that I follow just to keep better tabs on state politics. But they post on national politics too. This morning they had a headline and lead that a al-Qaeda is struggling since it lost a key recruiting asset. Then they showed a picture of Bush. I let 'em have it back with a parody of their post on BBOW.

By: Scott Lucas

Scott Lucas — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:49:59 +0000

Agree fully with your last paragraph, but I think you miss the wider story. Officials in the Pentagon have been "spinning" against the closure of Guantanamo for the last two weeks. They tried the story that dozens of ex-detainees had joined Al Qa'eda, but were unable to back it up under scrutiny. The one story they could establish,al-Shihri, fed to the NYT, is another attempt to grab the headlines. See the analysis at the website Enduring America.

By: steve

steve — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:58:53 +0000

Have not read the details o this yet, but are we sure they were involved with al Qaeda before they went to Gitmo? If I were an al Qaeda recruiter, I would be looking to sign up anyone released from Gitmo. If I was someone completely innocent who got turned in for bounty, then spent six years at Gitmo, plus/minus torture, I might just sign up. I can see some of these guys being released being pretty pissed. Hell, if I were al Qaeda I might even take a page out of Anbar and pay these guys. After 5 or 6 years in Gitmo you probably do not have a job waiting for you.

In other words, why do we take this at face value. IO has not generally been our strong point, while al Qaeda has intermittently been pretty good at it. Otherwise, I agree with your general points. Part of the cost of freedom and liberty is risk.

Steve