Larry, you ignorant retard.L Day wrote:These "prisoners" to which you refer were captured on the battlefield..
Of the 700-something people held at Guantanamo, a fairly high number were, in fact, not captured anywhere near any real battlefield. (Unless you get very Kafka-esque and define the entire surface of the earth as the theater of operations of the "war on terror".)
Remember how the Guantanamo detainees are the "worst of the worst"? More than half of them (about 420) have simply been released. So terrible, so horrible, so bad, that, uh, the US has, uh, let them walk free. And as for Dick Cheney's claim that some of them had "returned to the battlefield" after release: uh, as a result of a court order, the Department of Defense's own records showed that his claim was groundless (that means "wrong" in simple words).
A "great" example of non-battlefield detainees are 5 Chinese guys who are currently in Albania. They're ethnic Uyghurs who were in Pakistan looking for work. When the US offered a bounty on supposed "terrorists", locals started turning in any and all foreigners. These poor schmos made some weasel a shitload of cash, while they got a vacation to the beaches of Cuba. (They're currently in Albania, because the US judicial system was about to hear their case for habeas corpus. Rather than having their asses handed to them in court, the US military quickly declared them "no longer enemy combatants" (no longer?) and got them the hell off US controlled soil. The only place they could dump them was Albania.)
Airat Vakhitov is another example of a Guantanamo detainee who was simply not captured on a battlefield. He is a Russian who was taken by US forces from, get this, inside a Taliban prison. Some battlefield. Guess what - he, too, is "no longer" an "enemy combatant".
There's Bisher Amin Khalil Al-Rawi, a British national, who was seized in Gambia. Please explain which part of Gambia is a "battlefield".
Yes, Larry, I have just provided you with a new orifice from which to pass feces.
Seriously, who here actually thinks that mere "facts" will even slightly alter Larry's stunningly wrong ideas?
