Why We Need Guantanamo

The Military Times reported yesterday that the five Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo who were released in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl have joined the insurgent group’s political office in Qatar.

The article reports:

They will now be among Taliban representatives negotiating for peace in Afghanistan, a sign some negotiators in Kabul say indicates the Taliban’s desire for a peace pact.

Others fear the five, all of whom were close to the insurgent group’s founder and hard-line leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, bring with them the same ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam that characterized the group’s five-year rule that ended in 2001 with the U.S.-led invasion.

The article details some of the history of the five former prisonersL

But there are some among the five who have a disturbing past.

Human Rights Watch accused Mohammed Fazl, the former Taliban army chief arrested in 2002, of overseeing the deaths of thousands of minority Shiites in 2000. The massacre outraged the world and followed the killing the year before of an estimated 2,000 young ethnic Pashtuns in northern Afghanistan by Taliban rivals.

Another of the five is Khairullah Khairkhwa, a former governor of Herat province, who was close to both Taliban founder Mullah Omar and al- Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Khairkhwa also had a friendship with former president Hamid Karzai.

The others include Abdul Haq Wasiq, deputy intelligence minister, Mullah Norullah Nori, once described as the most significant Taliban leader held at Guantanamo Bay because of his particularly close relationship with Mullah Omar, who fought U.S.-led coalition forces in northern Afghanistan’s Mazar-e-Sharif and Mohammad Nabi Omari, a Taliban communications officer.

All five are from southern Afghanistan, the Taliban’s heartland.

Releasing these men from Guantanamo makes as much sense as releasing an unrepentant serial murderer. The only thing releasing them accomplished was to put American troops in danger.

Why We Need Guantanamo

The Washington Times is reporting today that Abu Zakariya al-Britani, the suicide bomber who attacked a military base in Iraq this week, was a former Guantanamo Bay detainee freed in 2004 after Britain lobbied for his release.

The article reports:

He was one of 16 men paid a total of 10 million pounds (now worth $12.4 million) in compensation in 2010, when the British government settled a lawsuit alleging its intelligence agencies were complicit in the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, according to the officials.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Al-Harith was a web designer and convert to Islam when he set off on a visit to a religious retreat in Pakistan in October 2001. He says he was warned the country was not safe due to deep anti-British and American sentiment in the days before the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, and decided to return to Europe by land via Iran and Turkey.

The article concludes:

Alex Carlile, Britain’s former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that al-Harith’s case was settled to avoid disclosing sensitive documents in a court battle.

“Plainly he was a terrorist and he was a potentially dangerous terrorist,” he told the BBC. “The issue was the legal disclosure rules. If someone brings a civil action for damages they are entitled to disclosure of material, some of which may be national security material.”

The issue will raise questions about how a person clearly on the radar of security officials might have left Britain and traveled to the Middle East without raising signals from the security services.

Arthur Snell, a former head of the Prevent program, which is part of the Britain’s counter terrorism strategy, said the authorities clearly had lost track of him.

“It’s obvious that collectively, the authorities — and obviously I have some personal responsibility there — we failed to be aware of what Fiddler was up to,” the told the BBC.

We cannot afford to continue making this sort of mistake. The prisoners at Guantanamo need to stay there. The likelihood of these prisoners ever living their lives as productive citizens is very slim. Guantanamo is not a horrible place, and they need to spend the rest of their lives there. There are being given diets following the religious guidelines and have access to recreational and educational facilities. I realize that it would be nice for them to be free, but how many innocent lives are you willing to sacrifice for their freedom? Keep in mind that Abu Zakariya al-Britani was a suicide bomber. How brainwashed do you have to be to blow yourself up in the name of Allah? How many more of the prisoners at Guantanamo would be willing to do the same thing if released?

Coming To A City Near You

We all understand that with the exception of giving Americans the right to sue terrorist-sponsoring countries, Congress has not stood up to President Obama. This week America gave up oversight of the Internet, and Congress failed to stop it. The other examples of Congress not representing the people who elected them are endless. That is the reason that what I am about to post concerns me. I believe that during the last three months on his administration, President Obama will take extreme liberties with his office and Congress will not stop him.

Today The Washington Free Beacon is reporting the following:

The Obama administration secretly used taxpayer money to fund an official inspection of several U.S. cities as possible locations to move terrorist inmates held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in violation of federal law, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

The Obama administration ordered the Pentagon to spend U.S. taxpayer funds for a domestic search of “possible Guantanamo detainee relocation” sites, according to documents obtained by the Free BeaconUnited States law bars the administration from spending taxpayer money on its effort to move Gitmo inmates onto American soil.

The disclosure has prompted a congressional inquiry to determine who in the Obama administration ordered the relocation search and how taxpayer funds were authorized for that purpose, according to a formal letter sent by lawmakers to the Defense Department on Monday and obtained by the Free Beacon.

The disclosure of this activity by the Obama administration has renewed concerns on Capitol Hill that the White House will make a last-minute effort to shutter the Gitmo prison and ship the remaining inmates to the United States, despite laws prohibiting the transfers.

I would like to remind you why the terrorist prisoners were held at Guantanamo. Escaping from Guantanamo would be a losing proposition. Even if you managed to get out of the prison enclosure and out the main gate, there would be no guarantee that you would be treated well by the Castro family. Also, Guantanamo is not within the continental United States, and it is questionable what civil rights the detainees have. As soon as you move the terrorist prisoners to the continental United States you immediately open up the possibility of escape and the question of civil rights. You also open up the possibility of a hostage situation in the area of the prison in order to get the prisoners released. I would like to remind you of what happened in Beslan, North Ossetia (a northern area of the Russian federation) in September 2004. Terrorists took over an elementary school and held the school for three days. In the end 330 hostages were killed, including 186 children. The siege ended when Russian security forces stormed the building.

The prisoners at Guantanamo are there because they are non-combatants captured on the battlefield or in raids of terrorist cells. They are terrorists. They are not bound by or protected by the rules of the Geneva Convention. Their past actions demonstrate little concern for civilians in the areas they target. Unfortunately, with the recent influx of unvetted immigrants from the Middle East, the prisoners moved here from Guantanamo would have a lot of friends already in America. The opportunity for mischief and the danger to American citizens would increase dramatically.

The article further reports:

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt informed lawmakers in a letter late last month that he had discovered documentation showing the Obama administration spent more than $25,000 to scout potential relocation sites in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Charleston, South Carolina, and Florence, Colorado.

Schmidt obtained this information from the Pentagon only after threatening to sue the administration for its refusal to produce documentation on the matter.

“While the amount of money is relatively small—a total of$25,909.53, of which $7,687.20 was spent on the site survey for Fort Leavenworth—the admission raises the concern that the Department of Defense violated the law by knowingly expending these funds while federal law enacted by Congress expressly prohibited the agency from doing so,” Schmidt informed lawmakers in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Free Beacon.

The administration’s behavior has raised concerns in Congress that it is secretly planning to relocate detainees to United States cities without informing local officials and residents.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kansas) told the Free Beacon that Americans should not have the most “hardened terrorists” secretly transferred to their towns by the Obama administration.

…Guantanamo Bay inmates who have been released continue to reengage in terrorism. At least two former inmates have participated in terror operations against U.S. forces since January.

The Obama administration continues to pursue an aggressive effort to free as many inmates as possible before leaving office.

Let’s hope Congress has the backbone to stand up to President Obama on this issue.

Our Relationship With Saudi Arabia Is Getting Complicated

There is a price America pays for not being energy independent. It impacts the cost of living in America, but it also has a very negative impact on our freedom to make decisions about who are friends are around the world. Saudi Arabia is an example of one friend who has done some questionable things. The good thing that the Saudis have been responsible for is making sure oil is traded in American dollars. That is one of a few reasons America has not gone bankrupt. However, the Saudis are also a major player in the Wahabi sect of Islam. This is the sect that was responsible for 9/11 and is a major fund source for mosques and schools in America. There was a recent dust-up in Newton, Massachusetts, about a Saudi-funded social studies program that was teaching things about the Middle East that simply are not true. There are also a lot of questions about what is being taught in Saudi-funded mosques in America.

There are a few recent events that illustrate how complex America’s relationship with the Saudis is. The first event has to do with the families of the victims of 9/11 who want to sue Saudi Arabia as the source of the attack.

The U.K. Daily Mail reports the following:

Officials in Saudi Arabia have reportedly told the Obama administration they will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars of American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the September 11 attacks.

The warning was delivered by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month during a visit to Washington, the New York Times reported.

The minister said his country would sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets before the bill puts them in jeopardy. 

These people play hard ball.

The article cites a New York Times article that states:

The administration has tried to stop Congress from passing the legislation, a bipartisan Senate bill.

Al-Juberi purportedly informed the lawmakers during a trip to Washington that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell a huge chunk of American financial assets on the world market, fearing the legislation could become law and U.S. courts would then freeze the assets.

The Times said Riyadh’s resolve to actually deliver on the threat is dubious, since selling off those assets would be technically challenging and would damage the dollar, against which the Saudi national currency is pegged. 

Under the current US law, foreign nations have a degree of immunity from being sued in American courts.

I don’t agree with The New York Times. I think this move by the Saudis would sink the American economy.

Also keep in mind that there are 28 pages of the 9/11 Congressional investigation that are still secret. Popular wisdom states that those pages have to do with the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11. It will be interesting to see if those pages get released. President Obama has said that he will release them sometime in the next sixty days.

Meanwhile, President Obama has released nine Guantanamo prisoners to Saudi Arabia.

The Hill posted an article yesterday about the release. The article included the following statement by the Pentagon:

“The United States is grateful to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its humanitarian gesture and willingness to support ongoing U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility,” the Pentagon statement said. “The United States coordinated with government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to ensure these transfers took place consistent with appropriate security and humane treatment measures.”

I could fertilize my garden with the above statement. First of all, the Saudi government is not known for its humane treatment of prisoners. Second of all, if Saudi Arabia is interested in closing down Guantanamo, they are interested because they want their terrorists back. This is ridiculous, and it is a shame that the Pentagon has been politicized under President Obama to the point where they would make that statement.

The main job of  a government is to keep its people safe. It seems as if that is the only job the Obama Administration is not interested in doing.

 

 

The Argument For Keeping Guantanamo Open

Tim Scott, a South Carolina Senator, posted an article at the National Review on Wednesday. In the article he reminds us that President Obama recently vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act because it blocked the transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo to American soil. Senator Scott recently visited Guantanamo and feels that it is the best place on earth to keep terrorists. I would like to add that generally countries don’t release prisoners of war (which terrorists are not, but that is the closest I could come) until the war is over. I don’t think the war on terrorism is over.

Senator Scott points out:

The propaganda war: Opponents of keeping the detention facilities open at Guantanamo believe that by closing it, we can stop terrorist groups from using it as a recruiting tool. This requires you to also believe that any new facility built would not be held up as a recruiting tool. And if you believe that, I have a nice, new bridge to sell you. Here’s what is actually occurring at Guantanamo: 250 assaults on our guards in the past year and a half . . . and absolutely zero retaliations. Our troops are highly disciplined and dedicated to serving our nation, and this proves it. This number is rarely reported on, but it tells you more about what is happening at Guantanamo Bay than anything else.

The Senator also reminds us that compliant detainees have portable DVD players, headphones, satellite TV and PlayStations. Well-behaved prisoners can be out of their cells for 22 hours a day.

The Obama Administration claims that keeping prisoners at Guantanamo is more expensive than it would be to keep them on American soil. The Administration cites a cost of $2.4 million per prisoner per year. Well, not so fast. This supposed cost includes the salaries of the troops guarding the terrorists. These troops will still exist–they will simply be sent elsewhere. The savings are greatly exaggerated. There is also the rather important fact that about 30 percent of the prisoners released have gone back to terrorism. Not a pleasant thought.

There are a number of American facilities that the President feels could accommodate the prisoners, including Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, the Naval brig outside Charleston, S.C., and the supermax facility in Colorado. However, does anyone actually believe that if these prisoners were moved to these locations, terrorists in America would not find a way to get them out? Terrorists have attacked elementary schools, held hostages in order to make prisoner exchanges, blown up things, and generally threatened civilian populations on a regular basis. Why would anyone think they would not do this to free their comrades?

Closing Guantanamo has always been a bad idea. It will continue to be so until the world is free of terrorism. Unfortunately, I am not expecting that to happen in the near future.

 

At Least There Is Some Check On Releasing Prisoners From Guantanamo

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story today about the continuing push by President Obama to release all of the prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. It is quite possible that the recent ‘normalization’ of America‘s relationship to Cuba might be related to this desire in some way. However, here at home, there seems to be another roadblock in the President’s way (thank goodness).

In January of this year, NewsMax ran a story about the recidivism rate of former Guantanamo prisoners. They compared the numbers the government has released with their information. Any resemblance between the two sets of numbers was purely coincidental.

These are the government figures:

fleitz.jpg

This is what the article says about those numbers:

Republican claims of a 30 percent recidivism rate are based on combining the figures in green on all detainees confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorism.

I believe the actual recidivism rate is probably 30 percent or higher because of the time and difficulty in determining whether released Gitmo detainees have returned to terrorism.

Further complicating this determination are very strict definitions set by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to define what “confirmed” and “suspected of” reengaging in terrorist activities mean. Among other things, these definitions require evidence of direct involvement in terrorist activities and exclude communications with terrorist groups or engaging in anti-U.S. propaganda.

Meanwhile, President Obama is dealing with a familiar problem regarding the release of the prisoners.

Ed Morrissey reports:

Carter (Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter) also said that not every detainee in Guantanamo can be freed. “[W]e have to be very clear – there are people in Guantanamo Bay who cannot and should not be released because they will return to the terrorist fight,” he said. “And therefore we need a place where we can detain them in the long term. We have been forbidden to create such a place in U.S. territory.”

This is the problem that President Obama ran into with the last Secretary of Defense. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There has been speculation that our involvement with Cuba will involve the turning over of Guantanamo to Cuba. It will be interesting to see how that will be handled between now and the time that President Obama leaves office. A first-term President is not likely to want a resume that includes the release of prisoners that were later to be found killing Americans.

The Signals America Is Sending

President Obama does not represent all Americans. Unfortunately, to the world, he represents America. The things President Obama does or does not do may be shrugged off at home, but they are watched closely by the people in the world who may not love America.

Breitbart.com posted an article yesterday about the signals President Obama is sending to the rest of the world. The article begins by commenting on the fact that President Obama did not attend the meeting in Paris to support free speech.

The article reports:

Like it or not, the Ummah (Muslim world) seems likely to take that absence as another subtle message that Obama stood with the Islamic Jihadis who were defending the Prophet Mohammed.

For the supposed leader of the free world to be a no-show was an affront to Western democracies. The Obama Administration is now in full damage control mode by admitting it made an “error.” Was it an error or deliberate?

President Obama was not alone in his Paris no-show. If the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, who is number two in line for the presidency, and the new Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell, had the political courage to stand up for freedom and democracy, they both would have been in Paris showing the world where the United States Congress stands.

It would have been nice to see some American leadership there–Congressional or otherwise.

The article further points out the many mixed messages President Obama has send about radical Islam:

For example, in his June 4, 2009 Cairo “outreach” speech to the Muslim world, he gave some insight when he stated that he considered part of his responsibility as President of the United States was to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. I don’t think such a statement is in his oath of office.

Furthermore, he signaled his support for the “Arab Spring” Islamic uprisings. Both al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood understood by that signal that the United States under President Obama would not stand in their way in the revolution to come. Finally, in his September 2012 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama declared “that the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” That should have dispelled any doubt.

Under the Obama Administration, all military and civilian training manuals have been stripped of the words ‘Islamic terrorism,’ and our military and police are not getting the training they need in order to protect and defend America. Political correctness caused by the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into the Obama Administration will cost American lives.

The author of the article feels that the actions of President Obama are worthy of impeachment. I am not sure that would be the right answer, but I understand his logic.

The article concludes:

What more does it take to show where lie the sympathies of the Obama Administration? The continued release of hardened terrorists from Gitmo says it all. With its many other scandals and its tragic open border policies, which are unconstitutional, Congress must act to preserve and protect the country by initiating impeachment proceedings.

The Cost Of Releasing Prisoners From Guantanamo

Most of the political left has argued for years that the prison at Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for terrorists. Never mind that 9/11 happened before Guantanamo–that is their story and they are sticking to it. In keeping with the idea of closing Guantanamo (but not actually closing Guantanamo) President Obama has not sent anyone there and is releasing prisoners a few at a time to any country he can bribe to take them. So what happens to these prisoners?

Judicial Watch posted a story today about one Guantanamo alumni. Mullah Abdul Rauf has been busy since his release in 2007 (under President Bush–before Obama).

The article reports:

…he’s (Mullah Abdul Rauf) operating in Helmand province, actively recruiting fighters for ISIS. Citing local sources, a British newspaper writes that Rauf set up a base and is offering good wages to anyone willing to fight for the Islamic State. Rauf was a corps commander during the Taliban’s 1996-2001 rule of Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports. After getting captured by U.S. forces, he was sent to Gitmo in southeast Cuba but was released in 2007.

Rauf’s Department of Defense Joint Task Force Guantanamo file describes him as being closely associated with several senior level Taliban commanders and leaders. It also says that Rauf admitted involvement in the production and sales of opium as well as associations with criminal elements within the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. From the file: “Due to recent findings that detainee may have had a more important role within the Taliban than previously thought detainee’s intelligence value has been updated from low to medium due to his possible knowledge of: (1) Taliban leadership, (2) Taliban command and control.”

Rauf is one of a number of Gitmo terrorists who have returned to the fight after getting released, yet Obama continues freeing captives to keep his campaign promise of closing the prison. Just this week he let four Yemenis go, despite the risk that they will likely join Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the Yemen-based terror group that claimed responsibility for last week’s attack in France. In fact, dozens of freed Gitmo detainees have rejoined Al Qaeda in Yemen, the country where the 2009 Christmas Day airline bomber proudly trained. In 2010 Judicial Watch reported that a number of high-ranking Al Qaeda militants in Yemen—once held at Gitmo—may have been involved in a sophisticated scheme to send bombs on a U.S.-bound cargo plane.

Traditionally, prisoners-of-war are released after the war is over. The people at Guantanamo are not technically prisoners-of-war–they are enemy combatants and therefore do not have prisoner-of war status. At any rate, I don’t think the war is over, and why should we release them to kill American soldiers?

Ending The Release Of Terrorists By Executive Order

The Washington Examiner posted a story today about a group of Republicans putting together a bill that would block President Obama from releasing any more terrorists from Guantanamo during the remainder of his term.

The article reports:

The bill would bar the release or transfer of any detainees judged to be medium- or high-risk — the vast majority of those who remain — and requires greater justification for any other release or transfer. It also would bar transfers of any Guantanamo prisoner to Yemen, home country of the largest single group of remaining detainees.

The problem is that the prisoners released often return to the battlefield. The article reports:

According to the latest report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued in September, 107 of 620 detainees released from Guantanamo, or 17.3 percent, had been confirmed as returning to terrorism as of July 15, and another 77, or 12.4 percent, were suspected of having done so.

Traditionally, prisoners of war are not released until the war is over. Also, traditionally prisoners of war are not treated to soccer fields, recreational facilities and a diet in keeping with their religion. The prisoners at Guantanamo are being treated much better than they would be in their home countries. It is unfortunate that they are separated from their families and the people they love, but that is something they have earned.

President Obama is not bringing terrorists to Guantanamo–he is using drone strikes to kill them. Although, drone strikes do prevent them from further terrorist activity, it also cuts off a major source of intelligence about what is currently happening in the world of Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately terrorism has become a worldwide problem, and not capturing terrorists has taken away a valuable current source of information on what the terrorists are planning.

The Friday Night News Dump

While the rest of us were recovering from Christmas, Hugh Hewitt was working. Today he posted an article at HughHewitt.com about some news the White House released on the day after Christmas (Friday) at 5 pm. The news was about President Obama’s desire to close Guantanamo.

Mr. Hewitt quotes a CNN New Story:

Once a detainee is deemed no longer a risk, they are either transferred back to their country of origin, or a third country that is willing to take them.

Sixty-four of the 132 remaining detainees have been ruled eligible for transfer.

Of the 64 eligible, 54 are from Yemen. But the United States is not willing, at this point, to send them back to Yemen because of concerns that the government — under pressure from al Qaeda and Houthi militants — cannot ensure they do not join al Qaeda elements there. The administration for the last several months has been trying to find a country that will take the Yemenis and provide security and human rights assurances for them.

If the sixty-four are not dangerous, why would there be a problem sending them to Yemen? (Because they actually are dangerous–there is a game being played here).

The article lists President Obama’s reasons for wanting to close Guantanamo:

“It is something that continues to inspire jihadists and extremists around the world, the fact that these folks are being held,” Obama said. “It is contrary to our values and it is wildly expensive. We’re spending millions for each individual there. And we have drawn down the population there significantly.”

Guantanamo is not the problem in creating jihadists. Our values do include locking up people who are dangerous to society. Guantanamo may be expensive, but how much is an American life worth? A large percentage of prisoners released have returned to the battlefield and killed Americans. The fact that we have drawn down the population does not mean that we have done the right thing,

On December 24, Hot Air posted an article with the headline, “U.S. offering $5 million reward for Al Qaeda capo…who was released from Gitmo in 2006.” Unfortunately, that story is not unique.

Mr. Hewitt’s article concludes:

In short, an absurd, serial set of non-sequitors, about par for this president’s command of logic and persuasive argument. Windy and without logic or fact to back it up.  The new Congress should block him not only from closing Gitmo, but from expending money to relocate prisoners –a classic appropriations’ rider.  Given the way the world is going, we are going to need the facility for decades into the future, and a full throated defense of the necessity as well.

I hope we have someone in Washington who has that much wisdom.

 

Multi-Tasking In The Obama Administration

Watching the actions of the Obama Administration this past week, I am amazed at what they have accomplished. That is not necessarily a positive statement; it is simply an observation.

The recent Rose Garden press conference to announce the return of an American soldier was a sight to behold. The attempt to generate positive news coverage was obvious, even if the event might not have gone exactly as planned. The father of the returning soldier gave praise to allah in the language of the Taliban. But think of the problem those who understand just what happened will have making their case. No one wants to see an American soldier left behind. What kind of cold-hearted person would even consider criticizing the return of a soldier? So it is possible that the Obama Administration will get away with whitewashing the fact that there are some real questions regarding this soldier’s capture by the Taliban and the American lives lost in trying to get him back.

There is also the question of the Taliban ‘dream team’ being freed from Guantanamo in exchange for one American soldier. There are questions as to whether or not it is legal to release prisoners from Guantanamo without notifying Congress in advance. Is this the trial balloon that determines how much push back there will be when high level terrorists are released? Is this the first step in closing Guantanamo?

The President has now set a precedent for trading Americans for terrorists. That does not in any way make Americans safer. This whole scenario is a nightmare for the future security of America and Americans. However, if he gets away with it, it will be a public relations victory for President Obama.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Roots Of An Idea

On Friday, Fox News posted a story about the people behind the scenes who support the closing of the terrorist prisoner camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As you remember, President Obama has been attempting to close down this camp since he became President. Congress has opposed the move because of the complications of relocating prisoners and the risk of allowing prisoners to go free. The majority of the prisoners who have been set free from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan to fight again. There are some genuine questions as to whether terrorists can be rehabilitated. There are also some very prickly legal questions about bringing these prisoners into the United States–do they get the see the methods we used to collect evidence against them, do they have Miranda rights, etc.?

The story at Fox News listed the major groups supporting the closing of Guantanamo and the groups those groups are associated with. The list will not cause educated Americans to support the closing of Guantanamo.

The list includes:

Amnesty International. Along with Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International was revealed as partner organization to Al Karama, a human rights non-profit run by Qatar’s Abdul Rahman Omeir Al-Naimi. 

…Al-Naimi was recently exposed by the U.S. Treasury Department in December 2013 as a long-term major financier of Al Qaeda.

…Center for Constitutional Rights. CCR was founded by far-left civil rights lawyer William Kunstler in the 1960s, a man who told the press his goal was to “destroy society from within.”

…CCR is currently funded by groups like the “1848 Foundation,” named after the year Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto was published and revolutions swept through Europe.

…Reprieve. A British organization led by blogger Andy Worthington, it pressures release of British citizens and residents.  Ethiopia’s Binyam Mohammed, a British resident, allegedly plotted to blow up high rise apartment buildings in the U.S. with a dirty bomb; Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, and Shafiq Rasul, a.k.a., the Tipton Three, ethnic Pakistanis went to fight for jihad in Afghanistan but were caught by the Northern Alliance in Nov. 2001; and Shaker Aamer, a Saudi citizen with British residence, alleged to have led a unit of Al Qaeda fighters in Tora Bora, and reportedly a former close associate of Usama Bin Laden, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui.

…World Can’t Wait. This organization is believed to have been founded by members and supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party & Anarchists.

…Jason Leopold. Leopold is a former Los Angeles Times investigative journalist with a checkered past.  According to Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz, writing in a 2005 Washington Post feature, “Leopold says he engaged in ‘lying, cheating and backstabbing,’ is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life.”

Are these really organizations and people that Americans should find themselves in agreement with?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Has Been Put At Risk

Today’s U. K. Telegraph posted a story about a legal problem the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has encountered that may put the entire trial at risk.

The article reports:

…However, Brig Gen Mark Martins, the chief prosecutor, said the charge of conspiracy should be dropped because it was no longer “legally viable” following a court ruling that conspiracy – a charge that seeks to punish suspects for association with al-Qaeda – was not a recognised war crime under international law. This meant it could not legitimately be brought before a war-crimes tribunal such as Guantánamo.

The ruling by an appeals court in Washington DC overturned the conviction against Osama bin Laden‘s driver, Salim Hamdan, and has also undermined the conviction of Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, who made al-Qaeda propaganda films.

This is what happens when civilian courts get involved in military matters. The decision opens the door for  appeals of all the charges being faced by the September 11 co-conspirators and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was convicted in Yemen over the bombing of USS Cole.

Hopefully someone with some common sense will get involved in this situation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Purchase Of Thomson State Prison In Illinois

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today about the government’s  purchase of Thomson State Prison in Illinois. Mr. McCarthy believes that the prison is being prepared to house the inmates currently at Guantanamo.

The article reports:

As the 9/11 Families point out, the Justice Department’s court filing on the purchase of the state prison took pains to keep open its option to transfer Gitmo prisoners there. DOJ declares that the purpose of the acquisition includes “provid[ing] humane and secure confinement of individuals held under authority of any Act of Congress, and such other persons as in the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States are proper subjects for confinement in such institutions.” The Gitmo detainees are being held under the authority of acts of Congress — in particular, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. And Attorney General Holder has been insistent that, in his opinion, civilian federal prisons are fitting holding facilities for enemy-combatant terrorists captured in wartime.

As with many other things (the release of the Blind Sheik, the nasty parts of Obamacare, the crackdown on fracking, etc.), it is a safe bet that there will be no transfers of Guantanamo prisoners there until after the 2012 election.

What is the problem with moving Guantanamo prisoners there? Housing prisoners in the United States rather than on an island makes them easier for terrorists to access or to create hostage situations near the prison. Because the prisoners are actually on United States soil, it is only a matter of time before lawyers will get involved and find a legal loophole to let the prisoners loose on American streets. Generally, housing terrorists on American soil is just a bad idea.

This is another illustration of the need for a new administration in Washington.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Using The American Judicial System Against America

Yesterday’s New York Daily News posted an article about the circus that the trial of the 9/11 conspirators at Guantanamo has become. As you remember, one of the female defense lawyers had demanded that all female lawyers in the court wear Muslim dress. Other antics of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow defendants are detailed in a May 5th article in the U.K. Daily Mail. These antics include such things are refusing to answer the judge’s questions, delaying the trial by kneeling in prayer, removing their headphones (for translation) and reading magazines. Generally, the defendants have done anything they could to turn the proceedings into a circus. The only reason their antics are not on the front page of every newspaper is that the trial is taking place in Cuba in a military tribunal–thus illustrating the wisdom of a military trial in Cuba rather than a civlian trial in New York City.

The Daily News reports the latest antic:

As shown by their past offensive behavior, including at their all-day, long-into-the-night arraignment, the intent is to make as much of a joke of the proceedings as possible.

Their enablers now include Navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz and four fellow defense lawyers who have demanded that President Obama, former President George W. Bush and other top officials be compelled to testify.

The petition has about as much chance of success as a snowball in the Cuban heat. It is designed to undermine the credibility of the proceedings in those precincts where KSM has fans. The insinuation is that the tribunal judge is prejudiced against the defendants by virtue of harsh presidential statements made about them in the past.

In the past America has upheld some measure of decorum at military tribunals. I am hoping we will not be manipulated into abandoning that decorum during this trial (although it seems that we already have). We already have confessions from the men on trial, the questions should be, “Do we execute them and let them become martyrs or do we let them live out their lives enjoying a lifestyle they would never achieve in their home countries–electricity, running water, beautiful weather, etc.?” It’s an interesting dilemma.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Misplaced Charity

Today’s New York Post posted a story about Blake Allison, the husband of one of the victims of the terror attacks on 9/11, who is one of the 10 relatives of victims to win a lottery for tickets to the arraignment of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his evil accomplices.

It seems that Mr. Allison has also used the opportunity to see his wife’s murderers to meet with the terrorists’ lawyers to offer his services as a witness in order to try to prevent the terrorists from receiving the death penalty.

The article reports Mr. Allison’s statement:

“My opposition to the death penalty does not say I don’t want the people who killed my wife and [the other 911 victims] brought to account for their crimes,” he said.

“But for me, opposition to the death penalty is not situational. Just because I was hurt very badly and personally does not, in my mind, give me the go-ahead to take a life.”

He said that “9/11 was a particularly egregious and appalling crime,” but added, “I just think it’s wrong to take a life.”

Just for the record, the Judeo-Christian ethic allows for the killing of murderers. I appreciate the unwillingness of this man to want to see anyone executed for murdering his wife, but what about the families of the other victims?

The behavior of the 9/11 terrorists resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. Islamic terrorism has killed innocent civilians for more than thirty years. Should this continue without consequences? Does Mr. Allison believe these people can be rehabilitated? Does Mr. Allison believe that if these men are imprisoned anywhere other than Guantanamo they will not be eventually freed in a terrorist attack?

The military tribunals at Guantanamo have a basic difficulty–if the terrorists are sentenced to death and executed, they become martyrs; if they are sentenced to life, we will always have the threat of a hostage situation calling for their release or an attack by fellow terrorists on whatever facility they are imprisoned in.

I think I would rather have the terrorists become martyrs than risk the further loss of innocent civilians to keep there murderers alive.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Reason We Have A Budget Deficit

I can’t believe that I am posting this story during the same week that I posted a story talking about proposed cuts to promised benefits to veterans and their families (rightwinggranny.com).

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story reporting that the U. S. Government has just spent $750,000 of taxpayer money to build a new soccer field for prisoners held at Guantanamo.

The article reports:

The field is reportedly half the size of a standard American football field and has been constructed so that detainees can have “maximum access” to it — about 20 hours a day — including secure passage to the field without a guard escort.

Navy Comander Tamsen Reese told the AP Tuesday the new field replaces a small recreational area in a part of the facility that is no longer used.

According to a Fox Guantanamo source, outdoor activity helps to “reduce behavioral problems” and limits the interaction between guards and prisoners.

Spending $750,000 on Guantanamo prisoners while denying American veterans things they were promised if they served twenty years seems a little lopsided to  me.

Enhanced by Zemanta

In The Muslim Culture Weakness Does Not Lead To Peace

The Muslim culture is a very male-oriented culture where power is respected and weakness is not. I am not sure that our State Department and the Obama Administration are taking that into consideration in some of their recent actions.

Reuters reported yesterday that the Obama Administration is considering transferring a senior Taliban official now at Guantanamo over to Afghan custody. Haven’t we learned from our mistakes? In Iraq (see rightwinggranny.com) Ali Musa Daqduq, a Hezbollah operative involved in the planning of the kidnapping and murder of American soldiers in Karbala in 2007, who is also guilty of arming and training Iraqi insurgents, was turned over to the Iraqis as the Americans withdrew (rather than taken to Guantanamo) and is expected to be released to either Beirut or Tehran.

The Reuters story reports:

One U.S. intelligence official said there had been intense bipartisan opposition in Congress to the proposed transfer.

“I can tell you that the hair on the back of my neck went up when they walked in with this a month ago, and there’s been very, very strong letters fired off to the administration,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

The senior administration official confirmed that the White House has received letters from lawmakers on the issue. “We will not characterize classified Congressional correspondence, but what is clear is the President’s order to us to continue to discuss these important matters with Congress,” the official said.

Even supporters of a controversial deal with the Taliban – a fundamentalist group that refers to Americans as infidels and which is still killing U.S., NATO and Afghan soldiers on the battlefield – say the odds of striking an accord are slim.

Critics of Obama’s peace initiative remain deeply skeptical of the Taliban’s willingness to negotiate, given that the West’s intent to pull out most troops after 2014 could give insurgents a chance to reclaim lost territory or push the weak Kabul government toward collapse.

President Obama refuses to send anyone to Guantanamo. Unfortunately that refusal is putting Americans and our national security at risk.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Politics Trumps National Security

A U.S. Coast Guard vessel patrols Guantanamo B...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Wall Street Journal (no link–subscribers only) has an editorial entitled, “The Daqduq Disgrace.” It deals with terrorist Ali Musa Daqduq, a Hezbollah operative involved in the planning of the kidnapping and murder of American soldiers in Karbala in 2007, who is also guilty of arming and training Iraqi insurgents. Daqduq is in Iraqi custody. It is expected that Daqduq will be released.

The article reports:

The Administration contends that its hands were tied by the U. S.-Iraq status-of-forces agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration, which required Iraq’s consent–not forthcoming–to remove any prisoners from the country. But it’s hard to see why that stipulation would apply to Daqduq, who is not an Iraqi citizen (he is a Lebanese national).

The Administration considered bringing Daqduq to the U.S. for trial in federal court or a military tribunal (showing that the status-of-forces deal was not insurmountable).

The article in the Wall Street Journal points out that the place for Daqduq to go was Guantanamo. Unfortunately, although the Obama Administration has not been successful in its attempts to close Guantanamo, it has refused to send anyone there.

Daqduq will receive a hero’s welcome in either Beirut or Tehran. It is a shame that politics have prevented us from locking up someone who will probably do harm to America in the future.

Enhanced by Zemanta