11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

[plasmo]

11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Let's accept that the number is accurate, even though I doubt the Pentagon is the most unbiased source for it. So I can think of two major opinions:

A: Oh no, 11% are terrorists. We have to keep all the rest locked up so the likely same 11% of those still there who are terrorists cannot attack us.

B: Oh no, 89% of the people at Gitmo are innocent (or at least no longer terrorists). We should let them all out so the likely same 89% of those still there who are also innocent are not held incorrectly any more.

I'm B. I'd rather err on the side of letting some criminals go free and locking up fewer innocent people.

Which are you?

 

[PFSS]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

A: Oh no, 11% are terrorists. We have to keep all the rest locked up so the likely same 11% of those still there who are terrorists cannot attack us.

B: Oh no, 89% of the people at Gitmo are innocent (or at least no longer terrorists). We should let them all out so the likely same 89% of those still there who are also innocent are not held incorrectly any more.

Which are you?

I'm pretty sure most people here would find it unacceptable to lock up a person based on a 10% chance they are guilty, and most would be outraged if the US courts convicted 9 innocent people from every guilty one.

I note that whenever the topic of rape comes up a number of people here are rather enthusiastic about "better 100 guilty go free than one innocent gets locked away".

I wonder how many of those 11% are just really cranky about being locked up and tortured for 8 years.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

You're misinterpreting what what said so both of your conclusions are incorrect.

11% of the people they believed to be harmless turned out to dangers to us. 100% of the people they believed to be terrorists are still in jail. Since we don't know what percentage of the prisoners judged to be terrorists are actually terrorists, we can say nothing about what percentage of the total population is a threat to us.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

You're misinterpreting what what said so both of your conclusions are incorrect.

11% of the people they believed to be harmless turned out to dangers to us. 100% of the people they believed to be terrorists are still in jail. Since we don't know what percentage of the prisoners judged to be terrorists are actually terrorists, we can say nothing about what percentage of the total population is a threat to us.

I also felt that plasmo was overeager to interprete the statistics.

I still agree with him that the have been - and probably still are - some innocent people locked up in the Guantanamo, and it should not be so. But that's more of a gut feeling than a logical conclusion from the information shown here.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

I also felt that plasmo was overeager to interprete the statistics.

And that surprised you... why, exactly? :scratchhead:

I still agree with him that the have been - and probably still are - some innocent people locked up in the Guantanamo, and it should not be so. But that's more of a gut feeling than a logical conclusion from the information shown here.

It would also be both an invalid "gut feeling" and a mathematical probability. There will always be people who are incarcerated on grounds which are not technically correct or accurate. However, the Gitmo crew already have been through two judicial screenings to determine the validity of the charges.

The FOX news commentator, Judge Andrew Napolitano, apparently was able to review some of the charges. He said more or less how shocked he was at the evidence, and that there was no way a judge would allow the evidence in a court of law.

But then, I'm back on my old saw about evidence vs. facts and intelligence, which I'm sure everyone is tired of by now. I suggest Plasmo enroll in that program to sponsor Gitmo detainees I read about, where they will live in his house pending determination of their legal cases.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

And that surprised you... why, exactly? :scratchhead:

He is usually, as far as I can tell, a very logically oriented person and has previously done astute analysis on various sets of data. While I have rarely agreed with the conclusions, I thought I wouldn't often have qualms with his thought process.

It would also be both an invalid "gut feeling" and a mathematical probability. There will always be people who are incarcerated on grounds which are not technically correct or accurate. However, the Gitmo crew already have been through two judicial screenings to determine the validity of the charges.

The FOX news commentator, Judge Andrew Napolitano, apparently was able to review some of the charges. He said more or less how shocked he was at the evidence, and that there was no way a judge would allow the evidence in a court of law.

But the validity of the screenings themselves is questionable due to being largely off the record. That's what I base my gut feeling on - and, indeed, why I have to go with the gut feeling - the fact is, we don't know what's going on. And it's been a while that way.

And as Napolitano comments let one assume, the silence is dubious.

In addition, why would the mathematical probability be invalid (I assume you mean that such a stance would be invalid one to take in the light of the mathematical probabilities, since as far as I know, probabilities cannot be invalid, only the calculations can)? We don't the probability of a given Gitmo prisoner being guilty. On the other hand, we have a probability for the general populace violent crime re-conviction rate, which is around 60-70% in here. 11% is a darn sight lower, even if terrorism isn't your average I-hit-a-guy-with-a-beer-mug -line of work.

 

[Johnny]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Convict or release them.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

He is usually, as far as I can tell, a very logically oriented person and has previously done astute analysis on various sets of data.

I've not the same impression, obviously.

But the validity of the screenings themselves is questionable due to being largely off the record.

That goes to the leftist indoctrination that all authority is inherently suspect. They're hardly "off the record" - just sealed. In reality, these cases are probably <more> reviewed than those which would be tried in civilian court, but because leftists inherently doubt the honor and honesty of military members, and the "defense" in these cases are likewise military, it is far more soothing to their sensibilities to assume a kangaroo court and speculate from that basis.

And as Napolitano comments let one assume, the silence is dubious.

See above.

Here's a speculative, quite probable example of what the Judge saw: A Pakistani headman reports to whatever his ISI regional organization constitutes that there's a high-level Al Quaeda terrorist living in his village. Pakistani ISI kicks down the door and finds proof positive that the "perp" is indeed what he was suspected to be - they beat him quickly and he sings like a canary. They don't want to house this piece of inhuman waste for the next decade, they certainly don't want to stir up any sympathy by out-of-hand execution, and hay, the CIA is offering cash bonuses for gen-yoo-wine terrorists! Party on!

We don't the probability of a given Gitmo prisoner being guilty.

We do, actually, it's just that left-leaning types are unwilling to accept it as fact.

On the other hand, we have a probability for the general populace violent crime re-conviction rate, which is around 60-70% in here. 11% is a darn sight lower, even if terrorism isn't your average I-hit-a-guy-with-a-beer-mug -line of work.

Sorry, but your reasoning just fails here. Not only are we not discussing 11% <total> but as a <yearly> figure (IIRC), but we're only considering the rate of <capture>. The 60-70% you propose is that of standard criminals captured in a law-abiding society, where there is also a "bottom floor" caused by stupidity and drug use (rather than an international support network). How about you find a recidivism rate for organized crime members? Heck, they don't even have a high conviction rate.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

I've not the same impression, obviously.

Then you most probably are just drawn into passionate inspection of his subject matter.

That goes to the leftist indoctrination that all authority is inherently suspect. They're hardly "off the record" - just sealed. In reality, these cases are probably <more> reviewed than those which would be tried in civilian court, but because leftists inherently doubt the honor and honesty of military members, and the "defense" in these cases are likewise military, it is far more soothing to their sensibilities to assume a kangaroo court and speculate from that basis.

No, that's actually your indoctrination about what the Leftists think. See what I did there?

In all honesty, I'm not signing that at all. The libertarians, who on the right-left axis are better positioned on the right, are by far more suspicious of the government. Also, if you think the Leftist hate the army, then you haven't been hanging with Leftists hard-core enough. Only reason these guys would hate it for would be that they'd be absolutely sure they can't infiltrate it as of yet.

See above.

Here's a speculative, quite probable example of what the Judge saw: A Pakistani headman reports to whatever his ISI regional organization constitutes that there's a high-level Al Quaeda terrorist living in his village. Pakistani ISI kicks down the door and finds proof positive that the "perp" is indeed what he was suspected to be - they beat him quickly and he sings like a canary. They don't want to house this piece of inhuman waste for the next decade, they certainly don't want to stir up any sympathy by out-of-hand execution, and hay, the CIA is offering cash bonuses for gen-yoo-wine terrorists! Party on!

You made an anecdote up, way to disqualify what he said. Made-up always trumps an expert opinion. If he said it doesn't hold, it probably wasn't because of what you described - on the other hand, it might, since even in your case the only evidence is plea of guilty under duress.

We do, actually, it's just that left-leaning types are unwilling to accept it as fact.

How about you give me them, then? I haven't heard of that many actual convictions. "They're all held for a good reason" is not a conviction.

Sorry, but your reasoning just fails here. Not only are we not discussing 11% <total> but as a <yearly> figure (IIRC), but we're only considering the rate of <capture>. The 60-70% you propose is that of standard criminals captured in a law-abiding society, where there is also a "bottom floor" caused by stupidity and drug use (rather than an international support network). How about you find a recidivism rate for organized crime members? Heck, they don't even have a high conviction rate.

It's the rate of capture for both, so it doesn't exactly cut it for making the statistics incomparable - and neither does annuality, that investigation had a sample from one year with a one year screening-time. What's your issue here?

We don't have enough organised criminals here, all we have is a couple of MC members and a few Estonian pimps, so I can't produce rates. If you can, though, I'm all for measuring.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Then you most probably are just drawn into passionate inspection of his subject matter.

Not so much, but then I've only been drawn into discussion with him a couple of times. That was more than enough.

Also, if you think the Leftist hate the army, then you haven't been hanging with Leftists hard-core enough. Only reason these guys would hate it for would be that they'd be absolutely sure they can't infiltrate it as of yet.

Fair enough, substitute "Western Liberal-Progressives" - I'd concur that harder Leftists are just as fond of jackbooted stormtroopers as their imagined opposites in the NSDAP were, and that Libertarians tend to the opposite.

You made an anecdote up, way to disqualify what he said.

No, I made it up to postulate what he would have said were I to have been able to quote him at length. He mentioned how shocking it was, how it would never be possible to bring it before a judge or use it, and that it was clearly grounds for them staying in Gitmo and not being brought into the U.S. civil law system. And I think that the Judge is actually one of those who favors more legalism in the GWoT.

How about you give me them, then? I haven't heard of that many actual convictions. "They're all held for a good reason" is not a conviction.

You said, "We don't the probability of a given Gitmo prisoner being guilty." (referring to accepting a high probability of guilt). Again, we're talking about cross-reference of the concepts of a civil court with that of warfare - a prospect with rules only applicable because of a willingness to abide by a treaty. The "perps" in Gitmo <have> committed the vast majority of the evils they have been recorded as having done, but that's not the reason they're being kept on ice. They're where they are because just like the soldiers that Liberal-Progressives desire to portray them as, most will rejoin the battle as soon as the opportunity presents itself. Most of the weak sisters and uncommitted have been drained from the cesspool already, and per the OT, 11% of those turds floated right back up to the top of the bowl.

What's your issue here?

As you might have said of my scenario for the Judge: "Analogies suck".

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

On the positive side, it seems the recidivism rate for unconvinced terrorists is lower than that of most criminal offenders. Not sure if that says more about the unconvinced part than the terrorist part or not tho.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

You're misinterpreting what what said so both of your conclusions are incorrect.

11% of the people they believed to be harmless turned out to dangers to us. 100% of the people they believed to be terrorists are still in jail. Since we don't know what percentage of the prisoners judged to be terrorists are actually terrorists, we can say nothing about what percentage of the total population is a threat to us.

And let's not forget he mentioned "re-terrorize". Just because they don't go on to terrorize again, doesn't mean they never did in the first place.

Even with this in mind, however, I must say that if the government has evidence, they should use it in a trial. If they don't have evidence, they should let them go. None of this "we have evidence but we won't show it to anyone".

That goes to the leftist indoctrination that all authority is inherently suspect.

Mistrust (rightfully) of government was a founding principle of the US, and (used to be in better times) a staple of conservatives. Interesting to hear you attribute it to the left now.

 

[S Z]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

I wonder if they used the same rationale for the 11% rate as the 7% rate in 2007:

Just as the Government's claims that the Guantanamo detainees "were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces," do not comport with the Department of Defense's own data, neither do its claims that former detainees have "returned to the fight." The Department of Defense has publicly insisted that at least thirty (30) former Guantanamo detainees have "returned" to the battlefield, where they have been re-captured or killed. To date, however, the Department has described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists, and has identified only seven (7) of these individuals by name. More strikingly, data provided by the Department of Defense reveals that:

- at least eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals identified alleged by the Government to have "returned to the fight" are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government's detention policies;

- ten (10) of the individuals have neither been re-captured nor killed by anyone;

- and of the five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, two (2) of the individuals' names do not appear on the list of individuals who have at any time been detained at Guantanamo, and the remaining three (3) include one (1) individual who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantanamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.

I'm sure there is no co-incidence with this report and a certain someone taking office next week who ran partially on a platform for closing down Gitmo. Nor the recent comments by Judge Susan Crawford that the US tortured a Saudi national at Gitmo. Nope, none.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

B: Oh no, 89% of the people at Gitmo are innocent (or at least no longer terrorists). We should let them all out so the likely same 89% of those still there who are also innocent are not held incorrectly any more.

I'm B. I'd rather err on the side of letting some criminals go free and locking up fewer innocent people.

Which are you?

B basically says "because people who go to jail stop committing crimes, we should stop sending people to jail."

 

[plasmo]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

11% of the people they believed to be harmless turned out to dangers to us.

Very good point. I forgot we are with the "lock them all up and see what happens" rather than the "let them all out and see what happens" administration. Actually, I think the second would be a very interesting social experiment. But, yes, my numerical analysis is crap. Thanks for pointing it out.

But the basic idea is still: is it better to sacrifice safety for freedom or sacrifice freedom for safety? And I like freedom. When San Francisco wanted to shut down Halloween in the Castro because a few people get shot every year no matter how many police there are, I wanted them to keep it open and I'd take my chances. You don't want to get shot? Stay at home. But at least that way people can make their own choices rather than the government removing their freedom to choose. You don't want to get killed by a terrorist? Move to the Midwest.

I suggest Plasmo enroll in that program to sponsor Gitmo detainees I read about, where they will live in his house pending determination of their legal cases.

I actually would participate in that. Considering this is one of the most morally horrific thing our country has done in a while (murder in war, even of the occasional civilian, is generally acceptable, but torture has always been over the line), and I did not do enough to try and prevent it, even though I knew it was wrong, we all, myself included, should certainly bear some of the cost.

B basically says "because people who go to jail stop committing crimes, we should stop sending people to jail."

Oops, if I made it sound like that, my mistake. B is supposed to say, "because some people are incorrectly in jail, we should let everyone in jail out." A would be "because some people are incorrectly in jail, we should keep everyone in jail in."

Oh, and another point: many believe that torturing innocent (or even not innocent) detainees turned them in to (or did not turn them from being) terrorists. So perhaps all of those released were not terrorists when we captured them, but we made 11% of them become so. (Again, perhaps the numbers are 5% always terrorists and 6% Gitmo-created terrorists; the numbers don't matter quite as much as the general idea.)

 

[Glurin]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Mistrust (rightfully) of government was a founding principle of the US, and (used to be in better times) a staple of conservatives. Interesting to hear you attribute it to the left now.

Mistrust of government is still a staple of conservatives, but apparently its not one of republicans anymore. Blind hatred of authority is a staple of the left. Oddly enough, so is total devotion to government solving everybody's problems.

I actually would participate in that. Considering this is one of the most morally horrific thing our country has done in a while (murder in war, even of the occasional civilian, is generally acceptable, but torture has always been over the line), and I did not do enough to try and prevent it, even though I knew it was wrong, we all, myself included, should certainly bear some of the cost.

We've done much worse than torture in the past (though I'm of the opinion that most of the torture people are screaming about barely even qualifies). Heck, I think that the whole imprisoning people without a trial thing is a tad worse than real torture. Its just that the word "torture" makes good political buzz. Just like "gun control", "terrorist", and "global warming". Its insane how easy it is to manipulate the general public into believing Armageddon is upon us and its all [insert rival's name here] fault just by using any one of these buzzwords.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Mistrust (rightfully) of government was a founding principle of the US, and (used to be in better times) a staple of conservatives. Interesting to hear you attribute it to the left now.

I think your use of the caveat "rightfully" describes my concern. I strongly believe there is an obvious difference between our forefathers' hatred of tyranny (and the modern Liberal-Progressive embrace of it) versus the modern wacko belief in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 9/11 Troofers, and so forth. Just because Gov't is massively incompetent doesn't mean its members are inherently malevolent, yet that is what the prevailing trend in acceptable opinion is (as long as it's not a Liberal-Progressive who is under consideration, and even then you've got the tiny fringe of <Right->wing wackos who will believe the same way. One could probably scribble a term paper about how the increase in the former (invasive Gov't) has led to the prevalence of the latter (Troofers).

2 cases in point follow: :smug:

I'm sure there is no co-incidence with this report and a certain someone taking office next week who ran partially on a platform for closing down Gitmo. Nor the recent comments by Judge Susan Crawford that the US tortured a Saudi national at Gitmo. Nope, none.

Crawford should be relieved of her duties for gross negligence or incompetence. Many of the OTF members have undergone more of her so-called "torture" living in a college dormitory than the Gitmo detainees have.

I actually would participate in that. Considering this is one of the most morally horrific thing our country has done in a while (murder in war, even of the occasional civilian, is generally acceptable, but torture has always been over the line), and I did not do enough to try and prevent it, even though I knew it was wrong, we all, myself included, should certainly bear some of the cost.

If the above is not just trolling, then you truly have no reason. Our Gov't has imprisoned its own citizens in time of war, violated its own precept of "freedom of the press", participated in the fire-bombing of one of the most beautiful cities in Europe with no military rationale, it has participated in numerous cultural exterminations - and that's what we've done by <direct> action! Making a tiny number of murderous savages physically uncomfortable? Gib frackkin' brek. Achmed would slit your throat and rejoice in having done so, just as the Palestinians danced in the streets after hearing about 9/11.

Oh, and another point: many believe that torturing innocent (or even not innocent) detainees turned them in to (or did not turn them from being) terrorists. So perhaps all of those released were not terrorists when we captured them, but we made 11% of them become so. (Again, perhaps the numbers are 5% always terrorists and 6% Gitmo-created terrorists; the numbers don't matter quite as much as the general idea.)

That's the second silliest thing I've read this morning. Keep it up, please, I need some farce to lighten my day.

We've done much worse than torture in the past (though I'm of the opinion that most of the torture people are screaming about barely even qualifies). Heck, I think that the whole imprisoning people without a trial thing is a tad worse than real torture.

Both of your suspicions would be correct, but the problem is that the public has been led to believe that all Gitmo detainees have been locked in 4 x 4 cells and fed bread and water. Most have not had the benefit of a highly-paid civilian defense lawyer courtesy of George Soros, true - when those individuals realized that their bleeding heart antics would never receive public notice because the trials would be sealed, most of them ran screaming (screaming "torture" to the media, in no small part). Again, there <were> trials, modeled after those performed in WW2 to Germans detained under Geneva code - we were already giving these barbarous monsters far more legitimacy than they deserved. But now, thanks to the wrong-minded Supreme Court decision, we can look forward to having imported violent monsters from the farthest reaches of the world in order to deposit them on the streets of NYC. Hey, maybe Plasmo will get to give his life to Achmed after all...

 

[Rashiminos]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Detainees are released from Gitmo?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

I think your use of the caveat "rightfully" describes my concern.

This isn't like someone had a picture taken of them by a red light camera and now they are screaming that the government is out to get them.

I think holding people indefinitely on secret evidence constitutes a situation in which any mistrust of the government on the issue can be considered "rightful".

 

[krischan]

Re: 11% of Gitmo releasees re-terrorize

Crawford should be relieved of her duties for gross negligence or incompetence.

I agree that Crawford is incompetent. A state like the US should be more discrete and professional when torturing people.

Many of the OTF members have undergone more of her so-called "torture" living in a college dormitory than the Gitmo detainees have.

It's a bit hard to believe that you don't notice the bitter taste which your kind of cynism leaves.