Former Club Gitmo Guest Now Leads Al Qaida Branch

By Bob Ellis on January 23rd, 2009

palmIt seems jihadist Said Ali al-Shihri’s vacation at Club Gitmo is over, and he’s now back to the tough job of killing innocent people.

According to NewsMax, al-Shihri left Club Gitmo behind in 2007 where he went to a resort in Saudi Arabia before re-entering the terrorist workforce as the deputy leader of al-Qaida’s branch in Yemen.

Says NewsMax: 

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.

“They’re one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. “He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear.”

We recently learned that other former Club Gitmo vacationers have also returned to the terrorist workforce–about 60, by estimates.

This comes as the Obama Administration moves to shut down Club Gitmo and find other accommodations for the resorts residents–about 250 by the last count.  

How many of these jihadists may continue their vacations at other resorts, and how many may re-enter the terrorist workforce remains unclear.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: ,

  • cinemaphile85
    From the NewsMax article:

    "The story identifies the leader as Said Ali al-Shihri, a militant suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September."

    Notice how it says "suspected of" and not "formally charged with and conficted of." I don't know the full story of al-Shihri's detainment, but if he was merely suspected of attacking the embassy, he shouldn't have been at Guantanamo in the first place.
  • If WWII had begun now instead of 60 years ago, we'd still be quibbling over whether Hitler was evil or just misunderstood. If it had ended now instead of 60 years ago, we'd still be quibbling over whether to give Hitler and his henchmen a noose or therapy and a government subsidy.

    Liberals: ever eager to believe in the innocence of evil people.
  • cinemaphile85
    I'm not sure if that comment was directed at me, but I certainly won't argue that this al-Shihri person is a bad guy. But we can't go around arresting and detaining people just for being evil. That will take us down a very, very slippery slope.

    Until I see evidence proving that the rules were followed, proving that al-Shihri was charged and convicted of attacking the embassy, proving that he was detained based on more than suspicion, then I'll repeat what I said before: he should not have been held in Guantanamo in the first place. That's not being "eager to believe in the innocence of evil people." That's being eager to believe in following the rule of law. I'm shocked that a conservative like yourself doesn't feel the same way.
  • Performing terrorist acts and working with terrorists are "evil."

    We also do not carry out war the same way we carry out law enforcement (and I've been trained as both--a cop and a soldier). There is no time and no practical manner in which to carry out legal procedures of evidence gathering, interviewing witness, etc. etc. etc. in a combat situation.

    The humane thing to do with an enemy combatant is to lock them up to prevent them from re-entering the fight (as many former Club Gitmo guests have already done), and keep them there until the war is over.
  • cinemaphile85
    And arresting/detaining anyone we suspect of performing a terrorist act without bothering to charge or convict them with an actual crime is what, good? As I said, there is nothing in this article proving that al-Shihri was found guilty of the particular crime he was suspected of. At the most, he should have been released from Guantanamo after it was decided that we had no solid evidence against him.

    I think the humane thing to do is to determine whether an enemy combatant IS ACTUALLY an enemy combatant, and do so by following the rule of law, not relying on mere suspicion.
  • Thankfully, we weren't as morally confused during WWII as we are today. Otherwise, we would have had thousands of German soldiers on the battlefield that we kept having to capture, let go, refight, capture, let go, refight, capture...
  • cinemaphile85
    At least during World War II we had a much easier time knowing who our enemies were just by looking at them, since most of them wore impossible-to-miss swastikas and spoke German! At least back then we could point to entire populations and individual countries on the map and say with absolute certainty, "These are the people we're fighting."

    Things are much more complicated today, and I think it's because of the reality of the situation, not moral confusion. As much as you'd probably like to, we can't kill, detain, and/or surveil every Muslim "just in case" they might be a terrorist. If the American government continues to arrest "enemy combatants" on suspicion alone and hold them in a secret CIA prison for years without a trial, do you honestly think they'll willingly relinquish that power when this conflict is over? If we tolerate this kind of imprisonment now, what's to stop our federal government from doing the same thing to its own citizens in the future? It's a path I would rather us not go down if we can avoid it. Closing Guantanamo may not be the easiest route, but our lawfulness and respect for human dignity (should) be what separates us from the enemy.
  • That's a good point that the enemy was easier to identify in previous wars. Too bad these thugs don't have the guts to form a regular army and fight like real men.

    They like to hide behind civilian clothes, civilian facilities and civilians themselves while they do their dastardly work--of targeting civilians. They make the whole world more dangerous for everyone--our military members and their own civilian populations.

    Nevertheless, it is usually pretty obvious that these POWs have been involved in terrorist activities against the United States and our allies. They were either actively carrying arms against us when they were captured, or had well-corroborated trails of terrorist activity--or both.

    The fact that many of them have returned to terrorist activities after being released on "insufficient evidence" is further proof that we were right to lock them up in the first place.

    The fact that many of their home countries don't want them back also speaks volumes about those who remain in detention.

    The fact that we take pains to ensure a high thresh hold of culpability before even putting someone at Gitmo, and the very, very good treatment prisoners get there, in addition to our commitment to target militants over civilians, is what separates us from the enemy.
  • cinemaphile85
    Darn, wish there were an editing feature on this new setup. I meant to say convicted, not conficted. :-P
  • Do you have an account with Disqus, the third-party comments system I'm using? Mine has an edit link that can be used until someone posts a reply to the comment. It might just be a moderator function, but if you don't have a Disqus account, could be worth trying.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »