Ex-Gitmo Detainee Suicide Bomber

[Trish]

Ex-Gitmo Detainee Believed Responsible for Homicide Bombing In Iraq

Monday, May 05, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/images/foxnews_story.gif
Three years ago, Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti soldier who deserted to fight in Afghanistan alongside the Taliban, sat in a detention cell at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while lawyers argued whether he was an "enemy combatant."
Last week, a Dubai-based television channel reported that al-Ajmi was killed carrying out a homicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.
While the report did not specify which attack Abdullah carried out, Iraqi officials reported that Mosul was hit on April 26 by three homicide attacks, killing seven people.
CBS News reported that al-Ajmi carried out an attack on Wednesday, April 30, according to an unconfirmed report posted on a jihadist Web site.
Al-Ajmi's cousin, Salem, reportedly told Al-Arabiya television that , "We were shocked by the painful news we received ... from one of the friends of martyr Abdullah in Iraq."
Salem al-Ajmi reportedly said a friend told his cousin's family that the 30-year-old former detainee had fled Kuwait about two weeks ago.
Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, who was repatriated to Kuwait in November, 2005, was free on bail there awaiting trial on charges he helped to raise money for Al Qaeda.

U.S. counterterrorism analysts argued in a review of al-Ajmi's activities that he should not be released or returned to Kuwait based on the following:
— That he deserted from the Kuwaiti army to participate in a jihad in Afghanistan;
— The Taliban supplied him with arms, including grenades;
— He admitted fighting with the Taliban, including engaging in two or three firefights;
— He was captured by coalition forces in the Tora Bora region, an area once thought to be a hideout of Usama bin Laden;
— That upon his arrival at Guantanamo he demonstrated "aggressive" behavior; and,
— Based on a review of classified and unclassified documents, al-Ajmi was declared a threat to the United States and its allies.
Al-Ajmi denied all charges that he was an enemy combatant and a jihadist, and that documented statements were untrue.
He was repatriated to Kuwaiti authorities on Nov. 3, 2005.
Salem al-Ajmi said his cousin had a son after his return to Kuwait.
Reuters reported that Salem al-Ajmi said there were no indications his cousin planned to join Al Qaeda in Iraq, although he had become less sociable in the period leading up to his disappearance.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354209,00.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/01/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Guantanamo-Bomber.php

[apdst]

But at least his rights were protected.

[NortheastCynic]

Please.

The article doesn't specify WHY he was released, it only states that lawyers 'argued whether he was an enemy combatant', then it jumps to his release.

What should stick out is the fact that Kuwaiti authorities held him without bail, which allowed him to escape.

-NC

[AlanC]

Please.

The article doesn't specify WHY he was released, it only states that lawyers 'argued whether he was an enemy combatant', then it jumps to his release.

What should stick out is the fact that Kuwaiti authorities held him without bail, which allowed him to escape.

-NC

It says he was free on bail, not held without bail. But it is that freedom that allowed him to repeat his past behaviors. Too bad for his victims.

[NortheastCynic]

My mistake, that is what I meant to type. Allowing him to be released on bail appeared to be the mistake.

I would like to know what happened in America that allowed him to be released. The article [unsurprisingly] doesn't detail that. This leads me to believe that the authorities came to the conclusion that he wasn't an 'enemy combatant'.

This is similar to a jury finding a murderer innocent. What are we to do about that? Do away with the jury system?

-NC

[NortheastCynic]

After doing very little research, I have found that this prisoner was in fact released by the United States government, voluntarily after his status as an enemy combatant was upheld TWICE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdallah_Saleh_Ali_Al_Ajmi

The Wikipedia article is heavily cited.

-NC

[NortheastCynic]

In addition, there is another option that lies between letting potential terrorist go free and keeping them imprisoned indefinitely. We used to do it all the time in America, I think we called it a "trial".

I might be spelling it wrong, I'm not sure.

-NC

[apdst]

Allowing him to be released on bail appeared to be the mistake.

Turning him lose from Gitmo seems to be a mistake, as well.

In addition, there is another option that lies between letting potential terrorist go free and keeping them imprisoned indefinitely. We used to do it all the time in America, I think we called it a "trial".

Yeah, that way, they can walk on a technicality. That would be just lovely.

[NortheastCynic]

Yeah, that way, they can walk on a technicality. That would be just lovely.Or be found guilty and imprisoned. And those 'technicalities' that are often decried typically are 'laws'.

If the United States government is convinced that an individual has committed acts of terrorism [a crime], try him/her.

APDST, how would you handle an individual accused of terrorist activity?

-NC

[apdst]

And those 'technicalities' that are often decried typically are 'laws'.

Yeah, let's allow a suicide bomber walk because he wasn't Mirandized, or there was a typo on the warrant. Pure genius!

APDST, how would you handle an individual accused of terrorist activity?

Nail his nut sack to a lighter-pine stump and set the stump on fire, giving him a butter knife to cut himself lose with.

[Buck Laser]

It says he was free on bail, not held without bail. But it is that freedom that allowed him to repeat his past behaviors. Too bad for his victims.
Oh. my. GOD!!! A REPEAT suicide bomber? How he do that?

I am reminded of Chicken Sukiyaki, the world's most experienced kamikaze pilot. :shock:

[NortheastCynic]

Yeah, let's allow a suicide bomber walk because he wasn't Mirandized, or there was a typo on the warrant. Pure genius!Not nearly as genius as torturing someone who is innocent of the crime that they aren't being charged of, but are being held for.:thumbsup:

You're using the worst case scenario for my way, what if we do the same for yours? What do you say to a man who, I dunno, had his nut sack nailed to a lighter pine stump which was set on fire, despite having not committed a crime? "Sorry"?

Nail his nut sack to a lighter-pine stump and set the stump on fire, giving him a butter knife to cut himself lose with.Having said that, how can you possibly be pissed off when an American is beheaded? How is what your suggesting any better than what the terrorist do?

It isn't.

I rarely make partisan statements but: It amazes me how some [NOTE: SOME] conservatives claim to be Constitutional originalists and 'law and order' types until they want to ignore the Constitution or statutory law.

-NC

[apdst]

I rarely make partisan statements but: It amazes me how some [NOTE: SOME] conservatives claim to be Constitutional originalists and 'law and order' types until they want to ignore the Constitution or statutory law.

I'm not ignoring constitutional law. I'm just opposed to giving constitutional protection to people who are our enemy. Maybe we should have given the Nazis and the Bushidists the same protections? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Having said that, how can you possibly be pissed off when an American is beheaded?

Because it ain't about fair play. Would you wanna play fair if someone raped your wife in front of you?

[NortheastCynic]

You know what the difference is between the terrorists and the NAZIs? The NAZIs were uniformed soldiers we fought and killed in battlefields. Terrorists are people who break American LAWS meaning they should go through the legal system. And let's not pretend that we didn't give the NAZIs legal protection [Geneva Convention].

In addition, you didn't answer any of my questions.

-NC

[PatrickHenry]

Why am I not surprised that someone held without charges in an American gulag would, upon release, choose to kill while ending his own life? Brutalizing people creates brutality.

And FOXNews phrase, "homicide bombing" is a crack up...It's actually a suicide bombing, huh? But the WarWhore Channel seeks extra mileage from that stupid phrase...

[NortheastCynic]

Because it ain't about fair play. Would you wanna play fair if someone raped your wife in front of you?You mean would I want to do something worse to theirs? No. Because I'm not a monstrous, amoral, sorry excuse for a human being. If we are not bound by some sense of right or wrong with respect to the treatment of our enemies it is hypocritical and self-absorbed to expect our enemies to treat us with the same disregard for decency.

-NC

[Wndrtch]

Why am I not surprised that someone held without charges in an American gulag would, upon release, choose to kill while ending his own life? Brutalizing people creates brutality.

...or maybe our guys got it right, and this guy WAS a terrorist after all.

You know, some of the people at Git-mo, ARE actual terrorists. It DOES happen, from time to time.

[Wndrtch]

You know what the difference is between the terrorists and the NAZIs? The NAZIs were uniformed soldiers we fought and killed in battlefields. Terrorists are people who break American LAWS meaning they should go through the legal system. And let's not pretend that we didn't give the NAZIs legal protection [Geneva Convention].

In addition, you didn't answer any of my questions.

-NC

Legal system? You mean "No Controlling Legal Authority"? We tried that before, and it didn't work. Yousef Ramsis was treated like a common criminal after the 93 WTC bombing, and he was never interrogated to see what else he knew about or who his buddies were. Because of "No Controlling Legal Authority", Bill Clinton refused to take OBL when he was offered to us on three separate occasions prior to 911.

It was because of that attitude, that 911 happened in the first place.

[NortheastCynic]

So, you're claiming that because we didn't torture Ramzi Yousef, 9/11 was allowed to happen? There is absolutely no factual backing that would support the theory that Yousef would have knowingly betrayed his uncle [Khalid Sheik Mohhamdad], it is pure speculation on your part. Claiming that 9/11 could have been stopped using torture is unfounded theory.

-NC

[PatrickHenry]

...or maybe our guys got it right, and this guy WAS a terrorist after all.

You know, some of the people at Git-mo, ARE actual terrorists. It DOES happen, from time to time.If you broach that subject...you might as well admit that US troops are sometimes murderers...

To quote you: "It DOES happen, from time to time."

[Trish]

Why am I not surprised that someone held without charges in an American gulag would, upon release, choose to kill while ending his own life? Brutalizing people creates brutality.

And FOXNews phrase, "homicide bombing" is a crack up...It's actually a suicide bombing, huh? But the WarWhore Channel seeks extra mileage from that stupid phrase...

Either way, had he not been released from Gitmo to begin with he couldn't have killed anyone.

[Mia]

If the US could not prove guilt, there was no option but to release him. He should not have remained free on bail on such serious charges in Kuwait.

Another possibility: his actions were US government authorized.

[Mia]

Either way, had he not been released from Gitmo to begin with he couldn't have killed anyone.

True, and we could say that about anyone suspected of anything, and just hold everyone indefinitely.

No one said Police States aren't effective against crime. Some of us say it's not worth it.

[NortheastCynic]

Exactly Mia, if we cannot prove guilt, we must release someone. It's what we do in America, it's a concept that our system of law was founded upon. I do not think that a series of loosely connected Islamic fundamentalists should be able to succeed in undermining the basic tenets of our legal system.

-NC

[PatrickHenry]

Preventive arrest and detention and preventive war have the same origin: in the darkness of human fear of the other and disrespect for anyone but the self.

I think that all who validate holding anyone without charges should themselves be held without charges, the better to prevent their destructive agenda from being disseminated.

This means all the right-wing neoNazis that inhabit this board, who put on a mild face each morning to hide their depravity.

[Mia]

Preventive arrest and detention and preventive war have the same origin: in the darkness of human fear of the other and disrespect for anyone but the self.

I think that all who validate holding anyone without charges should themselves be held without charges, the better to prevent their destructive agenda from being disseminated.

This means all the right-wing neoNazis that inhabit this board, who put on a mild face each morning to hide their depravity.


Since I and so many others are scared of them, that's enough reason to have them arrested, isn't it? By their own logic?

[Elrathin]

Either way, had he not been released from Gitmo to begin with he couldn't have killed anyone.

If we had nuked the entire Middle East, he wouldn't have killed anyone either. Is that what we should have done as well?

[Wndrtch]

So, you're claiming that because we didn't torture Ramzi Yousef, 9/11 was allowed to happen? There is absolutely no factual backing that would support the theory that Yousef would have knowingly betrayed his uncle [Khalid Sheik Mohhamdad], it is pure speculation on your part. Claiming that 9/11 could have been stopped using torture is unfounded theory.

-NC

The fact is, that Ramsi had knowledge of future attacks, and we did nothing to get that information. We didn't even try. That's not even disputable at this point.

All it takes for bad people to commit evil, is for good people to do nothing. 911 is a prime example fot that.

[Wndrtch]

If you broach that subject...you might as well admit that US troops are sometimes murderers...

To quote you: "It DOES happen, from time to time."

I'll only go as far as to say that there are some murderers among US troops.

[NortheastCynic]

The fact is, that Ramsi had knowledge of future attacks, and we did nothing to get that information. We didn't even try. That's not even disputable at this point.

All it takes for bad people to commit evil, is for good people to do nothing. 911 is a prime example fot that.
False dilemma. There is something in between torture and doing nothing. We didn't do somethings that might have stopped September 11th. It impossible to know if torture was one of those things.

But to reiterate...Some torture does work, there's no denying that. But as I said before, nuking the Middle East would 'work' to diminish the world's population of terrorists, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

And torture is still illegal...Which is a fairly important detail.

-NC

[apdst]

You know what the difference is between the terrorists and the NAZIs? The NAZIs were uniformed soldiers we fought and killed in battlefields.

You're exactly right. Therefore, since the terrorists are illegal un-uniformed fighters, they do not rate protection under the Geneva Convention, nor The Constitution of The United Sates of America.

And let's not pretend that we didn't give the NAZIs legal protection [Geneva Convention].

Let's also not pretend that FDR and Churchill didn't want to forego a trial and just execute all the dudes that were tried at Nuremburg.

[NortheastCynic]

You're exactly right. Therefore, since the terrorists are illegal un-uniformed fighters, they do not rate protection under the Geneva Convention, nor The Constitution of The United Sates of America.The Constitution limits the government's power. It says nothing about citizenship nor uniformed fighters. If the government has someone in its custody, it must [as always] act within the confines of the Constitution. The idea that the Constitution applies to only Americans is a myth, it applies to anyone within the jurisdiction of the US government, as again, the Constitution limits what the government can do, period.

Let's also not pretend that FDR and Churchill didn't want to forego a trial and just execute all the dudes that were tried at Nuremburg.But they didn't just execute them, did they? No, they tried them...Then executed them.

-NC

[apdst]

nor uniformed fighters.

The Geneva Convention does, however, state that un-uniformed fighters are illegal and therefore not accorded protections under the The Geneva Convention.

But they didn't just execute them, did they?

The only reason they weren't executed, is because Stalin insisted on holding court.

Churchill held a list of approximately 2,500 former Nazis that he wanted clipped.

[PatrickHenry]

The Geneva Convention does, however, state that un-uniformed fighters are illegal and therefore not accorded protections under the The Geneva Convention.

You need to brush up on the GC, my friend.

The US had no proximate cause for war with Afghanistan and is an imperialist occupying power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I
Article 44. -Combatants and prisoners of war

This is the most controversial section of Protocol I. More specifically the paragraphs 3 through to 5. It is the primary cause for US administrations not adopting this protocol.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

( a ) During each military engagement, and

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.

This is a large extension of the laws of war because of the second sentence of paragraph 3. This sentence appears to give lawful combatant status to guerrillas who are not wearing a military uniform that distinguishes them from the civilian population. It has been generally accepted that to be a belligerent in a conflict one must be recognisable as such. As is stated in the first sentence, without such identification not only are belligerent occupation forces open to attack from combatants posing as civilians, but enemy civilians are more likely to be attacked by belligerent occupying forces who can use the legitimate legal defence that they thought they were engaging an enemy combatant. In general police are trained to asses the situation and only to fire if certain of their target's hostile intent, while soldiers are trained to asses a target and to fire if not certain of their targets peaceful intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[1]

So you need to revise your argument. And realize that you don't know as much as you think you do.

The Bush Administration are flagrant war criminals.

[NortheastCynic]

The Geneva Convention does, however, state that un-uniformed fighters are illegal and therefore not accorded protections under the The Geneva Convention.Right, and the Constitution does not...But you ignored that part of my post, for some reason.

The only reason they weren't executed, is because Stalin insisted on holding court.

Churchill held a list of approximately 2,500 former Nazis that he wanted clipped.So short answer, 'no, they were tried first.'

-NC