GITMO TO CLOSE - SPRINGTIME FOR JIHADISTS
Monday, November 17, 2008 at 08:17AM Now then, it may well be an article of faith for those on the political left that those interned at Guantanamo Bay are, at worst, angels with dirty faces. The very IDEA that they are captured Jihadists is repugant to the intelligentsia of leftworld, even though that is, of course,the reality. The scum in Gitmo were mostly captured on the battle fields of the Afghan/Pakistan tribal areas and for some odd reason, George W Bush felt it was best to have such people behind bars where they could not do harm.
Obama, the standard-bearer of liberal opinion, knows better of course and has stated he intends to close Guantanamo and "ban" torture. Wonder how the US military feel about this since a/ It clearly suggests that they carry out acts of torture and b/ It devalues the hard work and bravery that went into capturing the Jihadi and looking after them in the intervening years. My only criticism of the US military in the context of Gitmo is that it took prisoners in the first place. It would have been better that none were taken - the kindness shown then has been exploited ever since by the gutless internationalists who deny that a section of Islam is at war with us. Closing Gitmo may win the plaudits of Al Queda - is THAT the sort of change we want?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (93)
>>The scum in Gitmo were mostly captured on the battle fields of the Afghan/Pakistan tribal areas <<
This is a lie.
But, I suppose, a necessary lie for some.
It is a fact but unwelcome to the delusional community, I guess.
Well, both of you guys are pretty definite in your statements. Can either of you tell me where you get your information? Wikipedia has a long list of names, but only a few have any indication as to where they were captured. The Washington Post published a partial list of names in 2005 and claimed at the time that most of the detainees were captured in Afghanistan.
But, I couldn't find anything definitive as to how many people are being held at Guantanamo Bay or where they were first captured.
Good news. John McCain intended to do the very same if elected.
Oh, no, all the inmates of Gitmo were captured while they were handing out marshmallows to poor children. Free the marshmallow philanthropists! Stop torturing them by with-holding sugary treats from them and making them wear orange! Locking people up is well known to damage their self-esteem. Releasing these people may result in a few people ending up losing their heads, but it will, in genarl, be a civilising influence and make the world like America again. And Obama is so handsome!
Take your meds Tubby.
The US Military will follow the orders of the new Comander in Chief and avoid this stain on justice that served as one of the greatest anti-American propoganda tools ever created (and created by ourselves).
David,
I think it was always inevitable that Guantanamo was going to close. I don't think anybody thought it was a permanent fixture. Is this the right time to close it? I don't know.
Before I get too worked up about it I'm willing to wait to hear the full plans of what will happen to those who are transferred to American soil. Will they be tried by the military or civilian courts? What will happen to those who are acquitted?
I'm also curious as to whether there will be more or less cooperation from other countries if we are not going to detain some of these guys unless we have evidence that can be used in court. {I don't think the Yemeni government was too cooperative when President Clinton sent the FBI to Yemen in pursuit of those who carried out the African embassy bombings.}
Mahons,
It may be that Guantanamo Bay is a great "anti-American propoganda tool", I don't know. It works for those who like to bash America in Europe, but I'm not sure how it's perceived in those places where justice is a more remote concept.
It was always a messy and unpleasant half solution to a messy and unpleasant situation. The rules of war never imagined an army with global reach that fought without uniform or without the resources of a state at its disposal.
What would you do with those who are captured by either (a) American/allied forces on the battlefield or (b) by a state (like Pakistan) where Miranda vs Arizona doesn't apply?
>>Well, both of you guys are pretty definite in your statements. Can either of you tell me where you get your information?<<
Eagle, here's one source (you only have to read over the first 4 or 5 pages).
This report concludes that “the LARGE MAJORITY of detainees never participated in any combat against the United States on a battlefield” (my emphasis)
or here.
I remember also reading a National Journal article quoting Defence Department files that indicated that only 36 percent of the prisoners were even captured in Afghanistan, and most of these were arrested by non-US forces and handed over to the US for bounty.
Amnesty International also says the majority of prisoners at the camp were handed over to the US for the 8000 USD bounty per head.
Eagle - for starters there is no little information provided as to who was captured on the battlefiled and who wasn't. Secondly, partisans have previosuly been captured in wars without resorting to flying them around the world to a secret and secluded camp which was created in an attempt to eliminate the eyes of the justice sysytem.
It is a "trust us" prison, we are to trust what the government claims may be terrorists. Conservatives in principle don't trust government to tell the truth, why should they here.
In addition there are ample protocols for captured persons that either apply or would be a better model for our own.
Noel,
Thanks. Still that information is pretty old. According to CBS there are 250 people in Guantanamo now.
The first link you provide says that 86% of the detainees were arrested by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance. The report says that these people were "not captured on the field of battle", but the existence of any civil authority in some areas of Pakistan (and just about all of Afghanistan during the period 2001-2005) was only tenuous at best. So how you define "battlefield" is important.
And, no, I can't just read the first 4 or 5 pages because the assumptions that their conclusions are based on are (I presume) laid out in the detail of the report. I started reading it, but it's not a mathematical proof that those in Guantanamo don't belong there so much as they're skeptical.
I'm okay with that, but that doesn't mean I necessarily have to share their skepticism in its entirety. Also, I can guess at the government's motivations for holding people, but I don't know enough about these authors to make a guess at their motivations for writing this report.
They're skeptical of the government - and that's no harm - but I'm skeptical of them as well as skeptical of the government.
I support the continued existence of Guantanemo Bay.
Its closure may prove to be a grave error. Shame on Obama.
Sorry, Mahons, I didn't read your post before I wrote that reply to Noel.
Yes, Noel's link says that as of 2005 86% of the detainees were captured/arrested by Pakistan and or the Northern Alliance. Again, how you define "the battlefield" makes a big difference.
I'm interested in the partisans example. What partisans were captured by Americans before? Would those be Nazi collaborators? Or Vietcong? It's my understanding that Vietcong were turned over to the South Vietnamese authorities who dealt with them as they chose. Similarly with the collaborators during WWII.
But, in both of those cases the partisans were natives of the countries in which they were fighting. Al Qaeda and its allies constitute a stateless militia. If Pakistan captures a Yemeni member of al Qaeda and turns him over to us, what then? Maybe the evidence is flimsy or can't be revealed, do we just hand him over to Yemen who might well then turn him loose? It's not the same as the partisans situations of the past. At least not to my mind.
As for the power of government, it does worry me. I always assume governments lie. And, sure they could be lying about those who are held in Guantanamo, but it doesn't change the fact that I can see that there's a practical problem of what to do with these guys.
>>So how you define "battlefield" is important.<<
Quite. Like the "war" on terror, it's used in a literal sense to drum up the necessary pathos in the hushpuppy warriors back home; but then when you ask for details and definitions they go all metaphorical on you.
>>I can't just read the first 4 or 5 pages because the assumptions that their conclusions are<<
I meant that will suffice as confirmation that the document is the source you asked for.
>>it's not a mathematical proof that those in Guantanamo don't belong there so much as they're skeptical.<<
Well obviously, because there can never be "mathematical proof" of what is merely an opinion. Besides, even proof that none of those detained were caputred in combat, those in favour of Gitmo would just say that they deserve to be there anyway becasue, well, they're bad.
>>but I don't know enough about these authors to make a guess at their motivations for writing this report.<<
Check it out. BTW. What sources would you believe had a sincere motivation? It was, after all, you who asked for sources :)
In any case, I think at this stage we can agree that the claim that the Guatanamo prisoners "were mostly captured on the battle fields" is a propaganda lie.
I support the continued existence of Guantanemo Bay.
Its closure may prove to be a grave error. Shame on Obama.
Shame on you for supporting this moral abomination Phantom. And remember, McCain (your man) would have done the very same had he been elected.
I never said that McCain is perfect. I don't follow, I make up my own mind.
Gitmo was a unique response to utterly new circumstances.
Obama thinks he's being clever now, but he will create many new problems, and he will leave this country ( and yours,pal ) less safe.
The closing of Gitmo will be a sad day for justice and for safety.
Phantom,
Clearly you have no moral qualms about Gitmo. That is very sad. I think you shoud reflect on that.
I have moral qualms that more terrorists aren't in Gitmo.
And that certain numbers of guilty parties were released from there only to attack again.
I will continue to reflect on that.
Are you worried that there are innocent people held there?
No more than I'm worried that there are innocent people in any prison. I'm sure that there may be.
But there was/is a system that strives to be fair, so much so that they have released people who have attacked again.
I'm not being hyperbolic here. This is the best solution in a new and very bad situation. Like my man Winston says, its the worst system, except for all the others.
Your man Winston was a scoundrel and you're starting to sound like one too.
But there was/is a system that strives to be fair
What happened to due process? I thought that was a cornerstone of democracy. Ripping up these long-held principles sets a monstrously dangerous precedent.
No more than I'm worried that there are innocent people in any prison. I'm sure that there may be.
But as you well know people in other prisons have had a trial before a judge and jury.
Quite. Like the "war" on terror, it's used in a literal sense to drum up the necessary pathos in the hushpuppy warriors back home; but then when you ask for details and definitions they go all metaphorical on you.
Noel, I live in Ireland as do you (right?). Anyway, some of those who comment here may well be "hushpuppy warriors", but some of them live and work near where many who might well have been "hushpuppy warriors" died on September 11. The battlefield came to them and they demanded a response. Guantanamo was part of that response.
There are a lot of "hushpuppy peaceniks" here, where al Qaeda is no threat.
{By the way, I have no idea what 'hushpuppy' means other than as a soft, brown shoe.}
My comrade Sunsara Taylor makes some salient points in this exchance with the sewer rat Bill O'Reilly.
Oh, and Noel, I trust nobody when it comes to this sort of stuff. I'm 100% dependent on others to provide me with the evidence, which isn't really that bad, but I like to be aware of the motivations of those who provide the evidence. Everybody's got an angle.
DC
You're going into the area of name calling which is not helpful
Winston played the leading role in the saving of his country and a principal role in the saving of all of the western democracies. Not a bad life's work.
I certainly do not agree with everything he did on Irish and other issues such as freedom for India, but on balance he was a good man, a very great man. Your country and mine could use a few just like him.
He could write and he could speak to touch your heart. He could let bygones be bygones except on matters of principle. He liked to smoke and he loved to drink. All fine traits.
He was a friend of Michael Collins and had I a time machine and the chance to meet him, I'd be proud to call him a friend of mine.
You're going into the area of name calling which is not helpful
Apologies for that Phantom. But I'll ponit out that I only called Winston a name, not you. I just said you sounded like a....
I despise Chruchill for his role in Ireland though.
DC
Its cool.
His father was the real bad guy - I absolutely don't think Winston was.
I wish de Valera had called Winston's bluff with the " a nation once again " telegram.( where Churchill sought overt Irish involvement in WW2) You never know how events may have changed.
The 250 that are left were taken off the battle field, but O am sure as they are released to go kill westerners again Noel won't mind if they are released into a transitional home on his street
I have to agree with the Phantom here. Camp Xray was a reasonable approach to an unreasonable problem. The problem with closing it is this:
The people who remain at Gitmo are the worst of the worst; the ones that we didn't dare release. Everyone who was (possibly) a bystander, or who in fact didn't have a connection to the fight, have been released or repatriated.
What sort of justice do these guys deserve? I guarantee you that BO isn't going to let them into the normal court system; he's not that stupid. Some of them cannot be convicted by ordinary means; the evidence against them, if heard in open court, would reveal sources and methods we don't want revealed.
We could build a camp in Afganistan to hold them; but that camp would be a magnet for sucide bombings and truck bomb attacks.
It would solve many problems if we could just fly them back to their home country and hand them over to the local authorities. But we aren't allowed to do that if they face torture or other situations there. As I recall, there are jihadists walking the streets of England because the English courts say they can't be deported for fear of torture.
So that's a mistake we're rather loath to repeat. The reason there is a camp in Cuba is that flying them into the US is an unacceptable alternative. Obama's people are now trying to come up with some sort of court system for this; once they do, the arrangement will have to go through the federal courts for approval or disapproval. That's going to take some time. I don't see Camp Xray shutting down any time soon.
But we aren't allowed to do that if they face torture or other situations there
Yes "we" would never do such a thing! lol
The reason there is a camp in Cuba is that flying them into the US is an unacceptable alternative
Wrong, the reason there is a camp in Cuba is that the activities that go on there are illegal under American and international law.
I despise Chruchill for his role in Ireland though. I just despise the IRA for its role in Northern Ireland.
What happens to these men once released...hopefully they will be returned to their place of birth or kept in USA. The UK does not want them we have enough terorists of our own thankyou. All very intelligent men, doctors and the like, but terrorists nevertheless.
I just despise the IRA for its role in Northern Ireland
Maggie,
Your opinion on Irish affairs is irrelevant.
Drunken - why is her opinion irrelvant, because it conflicts with yours?
Phantom - there is no justice in Gitmo. There is an absence of Justice.
Troll - Where were the 250 that remain actually captured?
Gordon
They may wind up in Kansas.
After that, some of these bastards will be released onto the streets of America ( Uighur Chinese, who no country will take ).
People may ultimately die from this move. Reckless, and wrong.
--
There's more justice in Gitmo than there is in the US civilian system, famous for its abuses by Johnnie Cochran and John Edwards and other charlatans and frauds.
--
Maggie is a civil actor and I welcome her opinion on any subject.
Phantom - that is a wildly inaccurate claim that there is more justice in Gitmo than in the US system.
If China or Russia had a special prison tha tthe ytook people to without chraging them or permitting them fair trials and held them indefinitely because they claimed (without proof) that the persons were dangerous we'd all protest that. This is no diffferent.
The fairness of the trials is a matter of debate.
The fact that a number have been cleared ( some only to fight again ) does not help your case, counselor.
Phantom - Which trials?
The fact that a number have been cleared strengthens my case, as it demonstrates that those in charge do not know what they are doing as their decisions are purely arbitrary. And recall the far greater number cleared who have not fought again.
We don't have to surrender our prinicples to accomplish what needs to be done. And in a couple months, we won't have to.
The military commission trials, which came after hearings/proceedings that took place in the years prior.
If China or Russia had a special prison tha tthe ytook people to without chraging them or permitting them fair trials and held them indefinitely because they claimed (without proof) that the persons were dangerous we'd all protest that.
I doubt it. Many a Leftist regrets only that we know about the gulags, not their actual existence.
China still has its camps, North Korea is conducting experiments on its 'prisoners' even. But the usual goons only talk of Gitmo because it is America and its heritage of freedom they hate.
When Gitmo goes, it'll be something else that America is doing.
Don't count on Gitmo going quite so soon, by the way. If Obama doesn't yet know exactly who's held there, he soon will. Despite his campaign words about closing it down (which he will have the power to order on 5th January) he may well go through that moment that many do when elevated to great responsibility:
- "So what do we do, Boss?"
- "Erm ..."
Obama knows that he'll carry responsibility for one murder carried out by one jihadist released in the next four years. That kind of responsibility tends to concentrate the mind somewhat.
Bush has handed Obama a matter that Bush has outrageously failed to close. Gitmo was GWB's creation and he should have made every effort to resolve it.
But Obama wanted the gig and he got it. There's a very good chance of him fudging the Gitmo matter because you can say what you like without responsibility and those inmates are completely expendable, even to the Left.
Mahons, I would be interested in your opinion of this man's ideas for dealing with the detainees. Here's a piece of what he suggests, a link is at the bottom for the whole ball of wax:
To try these individuals, I suggest a hybrid "domestic terror court" that would allow for an in camera review of confidential intelligence information presented by the prosecutor and a representative of the intelligence services. A properly constituted domestic terror court - comprised of judges schooled in understanding intelligence reports and intelligence gathering procedures, and aware of the necessity of preserving constitutional rights-is the proper starting point in moving forward with post 9/11 terrorist prosecutions. The proposed hybrid paradigm will ensure both the state's obligations to keep intelligence and matters of national security confidential as well as the defendant's right to a fair trial.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299740
Mahons,
The principles are always bent (broken/surrendered) at times of crisis and then they gradually get restored. Guantanamo may represent a bending/breaking/surrendering of principles, but what do you do about these guys who are a threat and the only way you can put them on trial is to cause the death of others who might well be helping you right now?
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus in Maryland and Indiana; Roosevelt had 8 suspected sabateurs (2 Americans and 6 Germans) executed after a trial by a military commission that he hand-picked to guarantee guilty verdicts and executions. After September 11 President Bush faced a unique threat and he ordered unique responses.
Maybe the passage of 7 years has made some of these measures seem extreme, but for the most part Americans were unmoved by the plight of those who found themselves at Guantanamo when it was first established.
Daphne - Thanks for the link. It is certainly better than what they have now, and does take into account certain necessary safeguards. However, our federal courts have handled terrorist cases and are already equipped to preserve national security rights. Of course (and this may seem legalese but it ain't) there is a question of proper jurisdiction. It is never easy to put toothpaste back in a tube.
Daphne, I found that link interesting.
And, Mahons, I'm not averse to changing the system now and to closing Guantanamo. I like the idea of being pure as the driven snow, but I also like the idea that the country not make too big a sacrifice in safety in pursuit of the noble ideals of absolute justice.
As long as national security is not willfully ignored and is taken into account I'm all in favor of a more just system.
Eagle - The Roosevelt chapter is fascinating history. All 8 sabateuars were in fact guilty (having landed by U-boat), although only 6 were executed - two who had turned themselves in were spared and later had their sentences communuted by Truman. Roosevelt did hand pick the defense lawyer (a decent man Kenneth Royall) who ignored his request and mounted a vigorous defense (even getting the constitutionality of FDR's acts before a civilian court).
More troubling was the round up of Japanese-Americans, now almost universally considered a terrible mistake, but at the time the Supreme Court backed up the President.
Lincoln faced an unprecedented insurrection and a host of Confederate sympathy in Maryland and Indiana. My instincts feel like he was wrong, but I have to think about that some more.
President Bush used September 11th to justify Gitmo, although almost no one in Gitmo was seriously connected to 9/11. It wasn't the only time he used that date for other purposes (such as re-election).
Well said Pete
David I love the post title. I love that song.
And now it's...
Springtime for Jeeeehad and Osaaama
Islam is happy and gay!
We're marching to a faster pace
Look out, here comes the master race!
Springtime for Jeeeehad! and Gitmo terrorists
But the US is a fine land once more!
Springtime for Jeeeehad and terrorists
Watch out, West
We're going on tour!
It ain't no myst'ry
If it's politics or hist'ry
The thing you gotta know is
Ev'rything is show biz
Sal'aam myself
Watch my show
I'm the Islamic Ethel Merman
Dontcha know
We are crossing borders
The new world order is here
Make a great big smile
Ev'ryone sal'aam to me
Wonderful me!
With Gitmo out of the way it's...
CHORUS!
Almost no one seriously connected to 9/11.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is only one guy, but jeez he was the mastermind of the entire affair.
Alison - Islam is gay? They will issue a fatwa on themselves.
Phantom - hence the word "almost".
They have Boy Thursday nights in the Afghan army. So, um yes, no need to change the original tune that much.
I believe that was referred to as " male activities " as part of the Taliban's new friendly approach to Afghan customs. Not that there's anything wrong with that <g>