| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Iraq-Jordan | ||
| US frees 1000 terrorists from Abu Ghraib | ||
| 2005-08-28 | ||
The U.S. military announced Saturday that it has released nearly 1,000 prisoners from Abu Ghraib prison in response to a request by Iraqi authorities.
After a meeting with President Jalal Talabani Thursday, Sunni negotiator Saleh al-Mutlaq said the president agreed to release many detainees before the Oct. 15, referendum on the constitution. Al-Mutlaq said hundreds of detainees, most of them Sunni Arabs, were to be set free. "This major release ... marks a significant event in Iraq's progress toward democratic governance and the rule of law," the U.S. statement said. "Those chosen for release are not guilty of serious, violent crimes — such as bombing, torture, kidnapping, or murder — and all have admitted their crimes, renounced violence, and pledged to be good citizens of a democratic Iraq."
| ||
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #16 Verlaine Im with you on the round up the lilkley suspects kill the prisoners found guilty after all the valuable intel is extracted to make room for more. If we cant kill the SOB's I say we take GPS trackers like the ankle braclets and stick one in these guys body then release emm. That way when he does re-offend we just pull his history up to trace back his every step. Strap it to one of his bones with a small charge so if he tries to remove it the doctor is out of action (one handed doctor aint doin much) and if he did live he would be out of action for awhile. If he gets in a car wreck or whatever and it goes off acidental oh well "gotta break some eggs to make a omolet" besides if they were arrested they are not actualy "innocent" to begin with. A lot of the reason this war is not going along even more one sided and faster is we fight with one hand tied behind our back. War is War and should always be faught like such. No stupid rules (cant bomb or raid mosque ect... catch and release...) one of the things needed to beat a insurgency is demoralize the enemy make him believe he has no chance of any victory Falluja should have been immediatley bombed into dust to show we would not lose at any price. That negotiation retreat moment of weakness whatever made the insurgent look feasable got them huge support and morale propoganda. Being overbairing and brutal would have maybe turned some against us but it would have made everyone respect us. We went into a nation that was run by a gov that used brutality to rule. That they understood this trying to be the good guy while fighting a war they dont just think it weakness. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2005-08-28 22:10 |
| #15 Been spending my time watching the hurricane approach New Orleans. I hope the catastrophe everyone's predicting doesn't happen, but my expectations aren't high. I've been thinking about this: we can't kill these nutjobs in Abu Ghraib. We can't even legally hold them much longer. IF we let them loose, and they attack us again, we CAN kill them. If we catch them a second time, we also have something to hold them on. Maybe, too, we're trying to watch these scum to see where they go, who they visit, and who they associate with. Then we can hammer all of them. Just a thought. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-08-28 21:18 |
| #14 The Sunnis are taking a page from American democracy. Like the Democrats, they are the party of convicted felons. The more jailbirds released, the more votes for them. In the future, the Iraqi police and the Coalition Forces should be more selective in who is taken alive. |
| Posted by: RWV 2005-08-28 17:56 |
| #13 "What the ICC has accomplished, despite our non-ratification of the treaty, is to have our military personnel look over their shoulders a little more" ZF, It's not the ICC that did it. It's because of the wobbly moderate Republicans that decided to stab Bush in the back for selfish political reasons. No one in the US, even talks about the ICC anymore. Even the MSM doesn't bring it up anymore. I don't why you are bringing it up? The US will never sign it, end of story. Clinton tried to sneak it in while Congress was on vacation, the Senate caught him and never ratified it. |
| Posted by: Poison Reverse 2005-08-28 17:26 |
| #12 Cath and release? Sure - with one privoso. If one of these "released" is ever caught again in any sort of questionable activity (like the one that shot LTC Kurilla and tried to kill the CSM), they will be summarily executed on the site after their identity is established. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2005-08-28 16:56 |
| #11 SW: Zhang, I don't think the ICC is a particular concern to us, since we didn't sign it and aren't held to it. I'm aware that this administration hasn't signed it. What of future administrations? I don't think there is a statute of limitations on the charges that the ICC can bring forward. It's not even the threat of going to jail per se - it's the possibility of doing something today that could end their careers or tarnish their professional reputations a decade down the road. What the ICC has accomplished, despite our non-ratification of the treaty, is to have our military personnel look over their shoulders a little more. And we are too politically-correct, as it is. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-28 13:38 |
| #10 SW - the NYTimes continually runs stories about falling crime rates while also noting we continue to incarcerate at a high rate...they totally fail to see any connection or cause/effect. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-08-28 12:17 |
| #9 Zhang, I don't think the ICC is a particular concern to us, since we didn't sign it and aren't held to it. Though I suppose some idiot country like Belgium (but I repeat myself) could try to arrest our personnel next time they rotated through NATO headquarters. I agree with you that the hysteria over the Abu Ghraib nonsense last year has a lot to do with this. If I were in charge, I'd follow Verlaine's strategy. We've actually done something similar in the U.S. Notice how domestic crime has been going down, down, down? Think it has anything to do with keeping dangerous cons locked up for longer periods of time? . I've yet to hear how an "insurgency" would operate if 90% of the most likely demographic for its personnel were out of circulation. There's a lot of common sense in that statement. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-08-28 12:01 |
| #8 VII: Instead, we have catch-and-release of people who were picked up for cause. Don't talk to me about "not enough troops" I think we can credit the establishment of the ICC, and the mess over Abu Ghraib, thanks to our zealous military prosecutors. Our generals don't want to do anything that might result in jail time for themselves. And I don't blame them - the whole country has let them down with our hysteria and willingness to criminalize these minor infractions. I wonder how many liberal lawyers Clinton promoted within the military during his 8 years in office. And I wonder how many of these lawyers GWB promoted or kept in their positions, just as he did with their civilian counterparts, only for them to stick to him (and America) every chance they got. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-28 10:07 |
| #7 Cool! Let's release them and catch them again. its Fun! |
| Posted by: Hupegum Cragum5309 2005-08-28 09:37 |
| #6 Well, this whole business is high-risk, to be sure. I was there for the first stage of the release on Wednesday, and the guys didn't look very menacing. Each case must be decided by a 9-member board (3 MNF-I, 6 Iraqi). The prisoners actually appear before a magistrate and talk with an Iraqi investigative judge very quickly after arriving at Abu -- another feature that's rather amazing under the circumstances (and uh, no, you'll see no kudos from HRW, the ICRC, or certainly the media for that!). I'm not in a position to judge the program, but I do have my concerns. (BTW, I think Yon reported that the one who wounded Kurilla was in fact a catch-and-release veteran) I'd much rather see an intense, targeted, but mass-scale preventive detention effort be the center-piece of our ops in violent areas. We've got the Ba'ath Party roster, we've got many of the intel service rosters and snitch rosters, we've got local sources. Establish your criteria (party membership, known record of former regime involvement, age, gender - i.e. male - of suspect, tribal/family connections), pick your area (Samarra, Baqubah, select areas of Baghdad, eastern Mosul, many of the towns in the Lutufiyah area) and round up the likely suspects. Put our forces to work on roadblocks, cordons, searches and arrests, instead of force protection. Stand-up an Iraqi prison security force (OK, it'll be ugly, but worth it), house them in tent camps behind wire and mines. Probably too late for this. But I get so sick of hearing about the latest teen fad -- winning hearts and minds through benevolent aid projects and reconstruction help -- when this war, in the key hard-core Sunni areas, is like every other war, only more so: to be won by breaking the will of the enemy to resist. I've yet to hear how an "insurgency" would operate if 90% of the most likely demographic for its personnel were out of circulation. Instead, we have catch-and-release of people who were picked up for cause. Don't talk to me about "not enough troops" ..... |
| Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq 2005-08-28 06:10 |
| #5 "..and all have admitted their crimes, renounced violence, and pledged to be good citizens of a democratic Iraq." Oh, puhhlease. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-28 04:27 |
| #4 This catch and release business isn't right, maybe in Yellowstone, but not in Iraq. |
| Posted by: Jan 2005-08-28 02:12 |
| #3 Where have I seen things like this before? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2005-08-28 00:27 |
| #2 The headline doesn't seem to match the article. |
| Posted by: Paul Moloney 2005-08-28 00:21 |
| #1 I wonder if the asswhipe who shot LTC Kurilla is among them..... it wouldn't suprise me a bit. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-08-28 00:07 |