NationStates Jolt Archive

According to this decision (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2005cv1312-89) (10p, pdf) by a U.S. District Court, being a cook for the Taliban is reason enough for the U.S. military to hold a Yemen man as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay.

Judge OKs holding Taliban cook at Guantanamo (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1155/01-28-2009/20090128093505_29.html)
By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge says being a cook for the Taliban is reason enough for the U.S. military to hold a Yemen man as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon on Wednesday denied Ghaleb Nassar Al Bihani's request to be released from the military prison.

Al Bihani, a citizen of Yemen, has been held for more than seven years. He says he never fired a weapon while serving with Taliban forces in Afghanistan and worked as an assistant in the kitchen.

Leon said that Al Bihani's work supported the Taliban, nevertheless, and that the U.S. government has appropriately classified him as an enemy combatant. In his ruling, Leon quoted Napoleon as saying: "An army marches on its stomach."

One the one hand, it is good that Al Bihani finally got a habeas corpus hearing and, in fairness to the government and the District Court, there are other allegations against Al Bihani.

On the other hand, the government is being held to a very low standard. They need only prove by a perponderance of the evidence (50%+) that an individual is an "enemy combatant" in order to continue holding them indefinitely. Although there were other allegations against Al Bihani, the court did actually say that simply serving as a cook for the Taliban was sufficient to be an "enemy combatant." :rolleyes:

To me, this is a bit ridiculous. What say you NSG?

If they got rid of the enemy combatant definition and the can of worms it represents, they could legitimately hold him as a POW. Support personnel for armies, even civilian ones, are usually valid as targets as well as POWs. Engineers, administrative staff, factory workers, even a cook, although that's kind of borderline.

you say that NOW but when he is let out of gitmo for being held for no good reason he is going to end up #3 man in alqaeda yemen.

gitmo must stay open!

did you see that the new administration is finding that the old administration didnt keep comprehensive case files on many of the gitmo detainees. the new guys are having to search out the reasons they are being held by going around to various agencies that have files on them.

did you see that the new administration is finding that the old administration didnt keep comprehensive case files on many of the gitmo detainees. the new guys are having to search out the reasons they are being held by going around to various agencies that have files on them.

Maybe they just destroyed them. Wouldn't surprise me if they did.

Reminds me of what happened when the state government here went over to the opposing political party. State offices had a lot of midnight visitors and left under guard with a lot of confetti that was formerly official documents.

If they got rid of the enemy combatant definition and the can of worms it represents, they could legitimately hold him as a POW. Support personnel for armies, even civilian ones, are usually valid as targets as well as POWs. Engineers, administrative staff, factory workers, even a cook, although that's kind of borderline.

You have a very fair point.

I just think this highlights how silly the "OMG the terrorists are going to be let loose" argument is when people are being held at Gitmo on little more than the likelihood they were a cook for the Taliban.

I also agree with NAS on this, and to me it just goes to show the extent to which the former adminstration just did not care whether what they were doing was worth anything or not. The whole fucking thing was just masturbatory.

God Im glad this place is closing.

God Im glad this place is closing.

NSG or Gitmo? :p

you say that NOW but when he is let out of gitmo for being held for no good reason he is going to end up #3 man in alqaeda yemen.


But Gitmo, you said you weren't a terrorist.

Gitmo wasn't a terrorist. But Gitmo is now....

He wasn't simply a cook, he admitted to fighting with the Taliban, "admitted to serving under an al Qaeda military commander", and that he retreated with the Taliban “to a designated guesthouse where the unit went to regroup in preparation for its next mission".

Calling him a simple assistant cook is quite misleading. xP

Well... Spatulas CAN be nasty:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c8/Ukyo_Kuonji.jpg/230px-Ukyo_Kuonji.jpg

...I like Ukkyo.

...I need a girlfriend. ;_;

I also agree with NAS on this, and to me it just goes to show the extent to which the former adminstration just did not care whether what they were doing was worth anything or not. The whole fucking thing was just masturbatory.
what also pisses me off is that they TOLD us that gitmo contains the worst of the worst--dick cheney repeated that just before he left office--with the implication being that its not so bad to torture these fucks who have killed so many innocent americans.

while the whole time they knew they were torturing cooks, chauffeurs and teenagers.

i hate them so much.

But Gitmo, you said you weren't a terrorist.

Gitmo wasn't a terrorist. But Gitmo is now....

But Im scawwwwwy.....

what also pisses me off is that they TOLD us that gitmo contains the worst of the worst

That cook IS the worst of the worst. Have you eaten his kebab?

That cook IS the worst of the worst. Have you eaten his kebab?
hes just an assistant cook. they didnt get the #1 cook of the taliban.

typical.

One the one hand, it is good that Al Bihani finally got a habeas corpus hearing and, in fairness to the government and the District Court, there are other allegations against Al Bihani.

On the other hand, the government is being held to a very low standard. They need only prove by a perponderance of the evidence (50%+) that an individual is an "enemy combatant" in order to continue holding them indefinitely. Although there were other allegations against Al Bihani, the court did actually say that simply serving as a cook for the Taliban was sufficient to be an "enemy combatant." :rolleyes:

To me, this is a bit ridiculous. What say you NSG?

He wasn't simply a cook, he admitted to fighting with the Taliban, "admitted to serving under an al Qaeda military commander", and that he retreated with the Taliban “to a designated guesthouse where the unit went to regroup in preparation for its next mission".

Calling him a simple assistant cook is quite misleading. xP

I tried to expressly avoid being misleading and I apologize if I was. The court did rule, however, that serving as a cook was sufficient to hold him.

I do take issue with your assertion that "he admitted to fighting with the Taliban." Unless I have grossly overlooked something in the decision, Al Bihani so admitted only to the extent admitting he was a cook for Taliban forces equates to "fighting."

Further, he retreated with the Taliban to a safehouse? That's terrible!! :rolleyes:

I tried to expressly avoid being misleading and I apologize if I was. The court did rule, however, that serving as a cook was sufficient to hold him.

I do take issue with your assertion that "he admitted to fighting with the Taliban." Unless I have grossly overlooked something in the decision, Al Bihani so admitted only to the extent admitting he was a cook for Taliban forces equates to "fighting."

Further, he retreated with the Taliban to a safehouse? That's terrible!! :rolleyes:
but since the taliban was the government of afghanistan when we invaded, he was defending his country.

how does that make him eligible for gitmo?

hes just an assistant cook. they didnt get the #1 cook of the taliban.

typical.

Nope. He admitted to fighting alongside the Taliban.

but since the taliban was the government of afghanistan when we invaded, he was defending his country.

how does that make him eligible for gitmo?

Actually, he was a citizen of Yemen and native of Saudi Arabia. He came to Afghanistan "sometime in or around May 2001 in response to a fatwa (religious decree) issued by a local Sheikh to fight jihad in support of the Taliban against the Northern Alliance." (I'm not clear on whether that last quote is an admitted fact or an allegation.)

Nope. He admitted to fighting alongside the Taliban.

No, he didnt.

Actually, he was a citizen of Yemen and native of Saudi Arabia. He came to Afghanistan "sometime in or around May 2001 in response to a fatwa (religious decree) issued by a local Sheikh to fight jihad in support of the Taliban against the Northern Alliance." (I'm not clear on whether that last quote is an admitted fact or an allegation.)
oh ya i forgot that.

so ....those legal aliens who are serving in OUR military are terrorists?

i just dont get why this guy who was working for the legitimate government of the country he was in ended up in gitmo as if he were a terrorist.

Nope. He admitted to fighting alongside the Taliban.

1) Again you use a loose definition of "fighting"

2) His service in the Taliban's forces was almost exclusively against the Northern Alliance. He retreated to the Taliban safehouse when the U.S. initially started bombing and surrendered immediately thereafter.

3) He's been held for SEVEN fucking years!! Isn't that a bit much -- even if the allegations against him are all true?

I tried to expressly avoid being misleading and I apologize if I was. The court did rule, however, that serving as a cook was sufficient to hold him.

I do take issue with your assertion that "he admitted to fighting with the Taliban." Unless I have grossly overlooked something in the decision, Al Bihani so admitted only to the extent admitting he was a cook for Taliban forces equates to "fighting."

Further, he retreated with the Taliban to a safehouse? That's terrible!! :rolleyes:

No harm done.

I'm fairly sure that terrorist organizations don't have 'regulated' roles for each person (e.g. You doing the cooking, I will be the soldier, etc.) like in modern armies. The guy admitted to going to serve in a jihad, so he knows how to wield a weapon. I'm fairly sure in terrorist groups, no one simply works as the cook. If he is called along to do some 'jihading', he could have, considering that he has experience with whatever weapon he was using.

Retreating with the Taliban to a safehouse implies that he is 'guilty by association'.

I'm fairly sure that terrorist organizations don't have 'regulated' roles for each person (e.g. You doing the cooking, I will be the soldier, etc.) like in modern armies. The guy admitted to going to serve in a jihad, so he knows how to wield a weapon. I'm fairly sure in terrorist groups, no one simply works as the cook. If he is called along to do some 'jihading', he could have, considering that he has experience with whatever weapon he was using.


Even if what you say is true, the Taliban was the sovereign government, not a terrorist organization.

So, essentially...youre pulling things out of your ass.

oh ya i forgot that.

so ....those legal aliens who are serving in OUR military are terrorists?

i just dont get why this guy who was working for the legitimate government of the country he was in ended up in gitmo as if he were a terrorist.

The court is applying the following definition of enemy combatant:

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.

The court is allowing the government to continue to hold any individual that is shown by a perponderance of the evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely more likely than not) to meet this definition.

In other words, the court is bending over backwards in favor of the government in these hearings.

Even if what you say is true, the Taliban was the sovereign government, not a terrorist organization.


Because they suppressed whoever spoke against the government.

The court is applying the following definition of enemy combatant:

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.

The court is allowing the government to continue to hold any individual that is shown by a perponderance of the evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely more likely than not) to meet this definition.

In other words, the court is bending over backwards in favor of the government in these hearings.
ya but really.

they were living in another country and resisting our invasion.

how is that illegal in any way shape or form?

its illegal to fight off an invasion?

Because they suppressed whoever spoke against the government.

And that is relevant because ..... ???

Because they suppressed whoever spoke against the government.

Why and how are irrelevent. They were the sovereign government.

ya but really.

they were living in another country and resisting our invasion.

how is that illegal in any way shape or form?

its illegal to fight off an invasion?

If the group supports human rights violations, then yes.

If the group supports human rights violations, then yes.

So being in the US army under Bush made you a war criminal then?

If the group supports human rights violations, then yes.
since when?

was he violating US law before we invaded?

If the group supports human rights violations, then yes.

Um. The U.S. is accused by international and/or human rights organizations of copious human rights violations. Are we therefore terrorists?

What the hell, I'm talking about the Taliban.

What the hell, I'm talking about the Taliban.
ya you are

but vile as they were, they were the government of afghanistan.

What the hell, I'm talking about the Taliban.

Which I agree was an odious group, but that doesn't make it right to imprison indefinitely anyone associated with such group.

EDIT: I may be confused, but the U.S. government wasn't so troubled by the Taliban when they were fighting the Soviet Union.

What the hell, I'm talking about the Taliban.

And your accusation that its illegal to defend your nation's government if that government violates human rights allows for the logic that its now a war crime to have served in the US military under Bush.

The Taliban was the sovereign government. Not a terrorist organization.

What the hell, I'm talking about the Taliban.

There's a simple way to clear this up. Should this person be treated as a prisoner of war or as a, relatively newly defined, enemy combatant?

Which I agree was an odious group, but that doesn't make it right to imprison indefinitely anyone associated with such group.

I had my bike jacked by cops a few weeks ago because my friends were snowballing some cars. 'Why?' I asked. 'Guilt by association' was the response. In this case, the man is guilty by association. He served under the Taliban, which we are fighting, thus making him an enemy.

I had my bike jacked by cops a few weeks ago because my friends were snowballing some cars. 'Why?' I asked. 'Guilt by association' was the response. In this case, the man is guilty by association. He served under the Taliban, which we are fighting, thus making him an enemy.

So standards of international law, human rights, and the U.S. Constitution should now be based on anecdotal tales of what some cop told you to justify the cop's actions?

EDIT: It is worth emphasizing that the only thing Al Bihani is alleged to have done after the U.S. started fighting the Taliban is retreat with the Taliban and surrender. Almost all of his "service under the Taliban" was before the U.S. bombing and invasion.

*snip simplistic analogy*He served under the Taliban, which we are fighting, thus making him an enemy.

Which no one argues with.


That doesnt, however, make him a terrorist.

I had my bike jacked by cops a few weeks ago because my friends were snowballing some cars. 'Why?' I asked. 'Guilt by association' was the response. In this case, the man is guilty by association. He served under the Taliban, which we are fighting, thus making him an enemy.
ya but we have only space for maybe 1000 such people at gitmo. is being "the enemy" enough to qualify this guy for indefinite detainment? is it OK to detain someone for a "crime" and never charge him?

hes just an assistant cook. they didnt get the #1 cook of the taliban.

typical.

The #1 cook wasn't committing crimes against humanity.

We need to keep this guy in Gitmo forever. Fucker doesn't wash his hands after using the bathroom.

The #1 cook wasn't committing crimes against humanity.

We need to keep this guy in Gitmo forever. Fucker doesn't wash his hands after using the bathroom.
FINE

but when the #1 cook ends up as the #1 cook for alqaeda yemen, you will wish we got him too.

Good points everyone, I don't know how to counter them...xP

If I have an additional point or two to make I will jump back in, but until then, later...

Good points everyone, I don't know how to counter them...xP

If I have an additional point or two to make I will jump back in, but until then, later...
oh i like you.

have i missed you posting here the whole time since may '06?

FINE

but when the #1 cook ends up as the #1 cook for alqaeda yemen, you will wish we got him too.

Not likely. Have you tried his food? It had me screaming bloody murder against the west. Which is kinda weird, because I don't even know Arabic.

oh i like you.

have i missed you posting here the whole time since may '06?

Lol. I am mostly on II, in wars and the like. Occasionally, I say something in General, but it seems too fast-paced for me....xD

Not likely. Have you tried his food? It had me screaming bloody murder against the west. Which is kinda weird, because I don't even know Arabic.
ahhh but youve never eaten in yemen have you?

ahhh but youve never eaten in yemen have you?

Inyemen? What kind of food is that? Is it like, a terrorist food, with terrorist sauce and terrorist bread?

Inyemen? What kind of food is that? Is it like, a terrorist food, with terrorist sauce and terrorist bread?
with a goat base.

with a goat base.

A scapegoat inyemen?

A scapegoat inyemen?
mmmmmm thats good eatin'

Even if what you say is true, the Taliban was the sovereign government, not a terrorist organization

Not so much
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban)
Although in control of Afghanistan's capital (Kabul) and much or most of the country for five years, the Taliban regime, or "Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
also they did use "terror", destruction of the Buddha statues anyone?

They also didn't technically fight the soviets
Active: since September 1994
The first major military activity of the Taliban was in October-November 1994 when they marched from Maiwand in southern Afghanistan to capture Kandahar City and the surrounding provinces, losing only a few dozen men.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration delivered several hundred FIM-92 Stinger missiles to Afghan resistance groups, including the Taliban, to aid the defeat of the Soviets.[77]
Damn, stupid regan


Though I do agree that, the cook shouldn't have been held for the time that he was(probably held for like a month or two to verafiy he was who he said he was then released)

Not so much
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban)

also they did use "terror", destruction of the Buddha statues anyone?

They also didn't technically fight the soviets



Damn, stupid regan


Though I do agree that, the cook shouldn't have been held for the time that he was(probably held for like a month or two to verafiy he was who he said he was then released)

I doubt I'm the only one that noticed that your source (Wikipedia) contradicts itself in saying the Taliban didn't exist until 1994, but military aid from the Reagan Administration during the 1980s.

Regardless, the rebels that fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan formed much of the basis of both Al Qaeda and the Taliban -- and we helped create them.

Jordan Tate: So who are you? Are you, you, like, some special forces guy or something?
Casey Ryback: Nah. I'm just a cook.
Jordan Tate: A cook?
Casey Ryback: [Whispering] Just a lowly, lowly cook.
Jordan Tate: Oh, my God, we're gonna die.
:p

The court is applying the following definition of enemy combatant:

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.

The court is allowing the government to continue to hold any individual that is shown by a perponderance of the evidence (not beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely more likely than not) to meet this definition.

In other words, the court is bending over backwards in favor of the government in these hearings.

Bloody Hell, that's a wide definition! Am I reading it wrong, or does it really say "An 'enemy combatant' is an individual who was supporting the Taliban"? Because that's a lot of people, people who may never have lifted a hand in anger.

Not so much
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban)

No where does it contradict that statement that the Taliban was the sovereign government.

also they did use "terror", destruction of the Buddha statues anyone?


Doesnt undermine anything Ive said.

also they did use "terror", destruction of the Buddha statues anyone?
While many things they did might be classified as "terror", attacks upon inanimate objects really don't fit.

Before I decide if he deserves to be imprisoned and tortured, I think I ought to sample his cooking. :p