Posts Tagged ‘Gitmo’

h1

Gitmo North

November 19, 2009

Gitmo North

IBD: 19 Nov. 2009

War On Terror: Sen. Dick Durbin calls a plan to transfer 100 Guantanamo detainees to northwest Illinois “a dream come true.” It would paint a bull’s-eye on America’s heartland in time for the 2012 Iowa caucuses.

It seems the question of where to put the Guantanamo detainees is being settled as we speak, with liberal Democrats in the very blue state of Illinois welcoming them with open arms and outstretched hands for the federal dollars that will come with them.

Federal officials last Friday inspected the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a town of 500 on the Iowa border, with the thought of transferring as many as 100 Gitmo inmates there. The prison, built to house 1,600 prisoners, now holds around 200, and has fallen victim to state budget problems.

At press conferences held in Chicago, Moline and Rockford, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who took over from the disgraced Rod Blagojevich, and Illinois’ senior U.S. senator, Dick Durbin, stumped for the plan, calling it “a dream come true.” We call it a nightmare on Main Street.

Read the rest of this entry ?

h1

Important: A Fast One On An Ally

June 19, 2009

Diplomacy: Should the U.S. scrap its special relationship with the U.K. to fulfill an ill-considered campaign vow? That’s the trade-off the Obama administration made by secretly foisting terrorists onto Bermuda. It’s wrong.

The British Foreign Office had a right to be angry at the U.S. transfer of four Uighur terrorists from Guantanamo detention to the U.K. colony of Bermuda without its knowledge.

After all, Britain is a sovereign state and, like any nation, has a right to know who’s on its territory. Instead, it got treated like some banana republic. It didn’t learn of the move until after the four Gitmo detainees were set to land on the island.

Britain is our top ally, having a long-term “special relationship” that has been carefully built over 200 years. Seen in this context, the U.S. move is unprecedented and will likely cost the U.S. more than just Britain’s trust.

Any nation pondering an alliance with the U.S. will think twice after seeing how the U.S. treats its best allies when it’s in a pinch.

The root of this pickle is the Obama administration’s ill-considered campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo detention camp, in a bid to win far-left voters unconcerned about terrorism.

If not for that promise, there’d be no such pickle. The president could make an honest reassessment of the promise in light of the absent alternatives but hasn’t.

Instead, he’s now strong-arming an ally against its own interests, something sure to create resentment.

The four Uighurs now sampling the good life on Bermuda are wanted back in China for terrorism. Britain will now get heat from China — and possibly retribution for a problem it didn’t cause.

No doubt, an angry China could reduce its cooperation with the West in the global war on terror. As China sizes up the West’s tough words about fighting terrorism, it sees a spectacle of Uighurs living high on the hog in “free” cottages, splashing around in blue Bermuda waters, savoring butter-pecan ice cream, going bowling, talking of opening a restaurant and looking forward to their new British passports. It’s the wrong message to send to other terrorists.

Obama’s creation of this situation shows considerable contempt for Britain, and seems part of an escalating pattern of slights.

It started around the time a State Department official said there was no special relationship with Britain, and Britain was just one of 180 nations the U.S. has relations with — a view which, by the way, was first propounded publicly in 2006 by a State Department official now accused of being a Cuban spy.

It then spread to insults directed at Prime Minister Gordon Brown, everything from not holding a joint press conference during Brown’s visit to the U.S., to a cheap and useless range of personal gifts. Foisting terrorists onto Britain takes it to a whole new level.

Sure the Obama administration says it’s just trying to shut down Gitmo and has justified its failure to inform the Brits as an effort to protect them from China’s wrath. Well, it hasn’t.

And as far as diplomatic moves go, it wasn’t worth it if the result is that the Britons will question whether they can ever trust us again.

It’s far more likely to raise bells of recognition that Obama seems willing to throw an ally over the side for political advantage at home.

After all, during his campaign, Obama sent an adviser to secretly assure the Canadians he didn’t mean it when he blasted Canada over free trade in public. Instead of affirming Canada’s long-standing friendly ties with the U.S., he used our closest hemispheric ally as a whipping boy. The Canadians didn’t put up with this and made sure that word of double-dealing got out.

It’s likely the British will get wise to this pattern of slights rooted in selfish political expediency and ask if it’s worth it to have this alliance. They’ll ask if America really wants a special alliance with Britain, and adjust their calculations accordingly.

Make no mistake — if that happens, it will reverberate far and wide.

h1

Cartoon: Terrorists in Palau

June 18, 2009

h1

Gitmo Terrorists moved to BERMUDA!

June 16, 2009

comment: GITMOre Terrorists out of Gitmo. T

A Fast One On An Ally

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, June 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Diplomacy: Should the U.S. scrap its special relationship with the U.K. to fulfill an ill-considered campaign vow? That’s the trade-off the Obama administration made by secretly foisting terrorists onto Bermuda. It’s wrong.


Read More: Europe & Central Asia


The British Foreign Office had a right to be angry at the U.S. transfer of four Uighur terrorists from Guantanamo detention to the U.K. colony of Bermuda without its knowledge.

After all, Britain is a sovereign state and, like any nation, has a right to know who’s on its territory. Instead, it got treated like some banana republic. It didn’t learn of the move until after the four Gitmo detainees were set to land on the island.

Britain is our top ally, having a long-term “special relationship” that has been carefully built over 200 years. Seen in this context, the U.S. move is unprecedented and will likely cost the U.S. more than just Britain’s trust.

Any nation pondering an alliance with the U.S. will think twice after seeing how the U.S. treats its best allies when it’s in a pinch.

The root of this pickle is the Obama administration’s ill-considered campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo detention camp, in a bid to win far-left voters unconcerned about terrorism.

If not for that promise, there’d be no such pickle. The president could make an honest reassessment of the promise in light of the absent alternatives but hasn’t.

Instead, he’s now strong-arming an ally against its own interests, something sure to create resentment.

The four Uighurs now sampling the good life on Bermuda are wanted back in China for terrorism. Britain will now get heat from China — and possibly retribution — for a problem it didn’t cause.

No doubt, an angry China could reduce its cooperation with the West in the global war on terror. As China sizes up the West’s tough words about fighting terrorism, it sees a spectacle of Uighurs living high on the hog in “free” cottages, splashing around in blue Bermuda waters, savoring butter-pecan ice cream, going bowling, talking of opening a restaurant and looking forward to their new British passports. It’s the wrong message to send to other terrorists.

Obama’s creation of this situation shows considerable contempt for Britain, and seems part of an escalating pattern of slights.

It started around the time a State Department official said there was no special relationship with Britain, and Britain was just one of 180 nations the U.S. has relations with — a view which, by the way, was first propounded publicly in 2006 by a State Department official now accused of being a Cuban spy.

It then spread to insults directed at Prime Minister Gordon Brown, everything from not holding a joint press conference during Brown’s visit to the U.S., to a cheap and useless range of personal gifts. Foisting terrorists onto Britain takes it to a whole new level.

Sure the Obama administration says it’s just trying to shut down Gitmo and has justified its failure to inform the Brits as an effort to protect them from China’s wrath. Well, it hasn’t.

And as far as diplomatic moves go, it wasn’t worth it if the result is that the Britons will question whether they can ever trust us again.

It’s far more likely to raise bells of recognition that Obama seems willing to throw an ally over the side for political advantage at home.

After all, during his campaign, Obama sent an adviser to secretly assure the Canadians he didn’t mean it when he blasted Canada over free trade in public. Instead of affirming Canada’s long-standing friendly ties with the U.S., he used our closest hemispheric ally as a whipping boy. The Canadians didn’t put up with this and made sure that word of double-dealing got out.

It’s likely the British will get wise to this pattern of slights rooted in selfish political expediency and ask if it’s worth it to have this alliance. They’ll ask if America really wants a special alliance with Britain, and adjust their calculations accordingly.

What do you bet that they SUE us?

h1

Cartoon: Statue of Liberty Poem, Give me your MASS MURDERERS

June 15, 2009

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled mass (murderers) yearning to breath free.

Close Gitmo

h1

Guantanamo’s Repeat Offenders

June 8, 2009

Guantanamo’s Repeat Offenders

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 08 June 2009

In his Cairo speech, President Obama went out of his way to say the U.S. had disavowed torture, however defined, of those who fly planes into buildings and otherwise plan mass murder.

He reminded the Arab street that the Supermax facility at Guantanamo housing these murderers, past and future, will be closed.

What will happen to these Gitmo residents is still unclear. Not a single member of Congress wants them housed in his or her district, and few countries seem willing to take many off our hands.

Congress still hasn’t funded the closing of Gitmo, and the Obama administration seems to be moving toward rationalizing some form of permanent detention.

Adding fuel to the controversy is a long-awaited Pentagon report, parts of which have been obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by CNSNews.com.

The report was first made available in late May in the form of a fact sheet that did not provide a complete picture of the released detainees who returned to terrorism.

Now we know more, including who they all are and what they did after their release. The stunning statistic in the report is that of the more than 530 Gitmo detainees transferred from the facility, 27 were confirmed to have re-engaged in terrorist activity and 47 were suspected of having done so. That’s a recidivism rate of 14%.

Among those released to return to make war on America are Said Mohammed Alim Shah (aka Abdullah Mahsud), who spent 25 months at Gitmo until his release from such inhuman bondage in March 2004.

While out on his own recognizance, Shah returned to his native South Waziristan, where he rebuilt and led a Taliban cadre estimated at 5,000 foot soldiers conducting cross-border raids from Pakistan. Shah kidnapped two Chinese engineers in October 2004 and directed a suicide attack in April 2007 that killed 31 people, according to the Pakistani government. After the attack, he blew himself up to avoid capture.

Then there’s Mohammed Ismail, one of two “innocent” teens held at Gitmo until he was released last year to great fanfare, holding a press conference thanking the American soldiers there for teaching him to read.

So grateful was he for his release, he tried to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan. After his recapture four months later, he was found carrying a letter confirming his status as a Taliban member in good standing.

Abdullah Salim Ali al Ajmi was originally detained in Afghanistan and spent three years at Gitmo before being released in 2005. Ajmi returned to Kuwait and in April of 2008 went to Iraq to become a suicide bomber. He was successful, taking numerous civilians with him when he blew himself away in Mosul.

At the time of that attack, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said it “demonstrates the difficulty of the detainees in Gitmo.”

“Once again,” said Hoekstra, “a detainee may have been given the benefit of the doubt, released and returned to the battlefield and attacked innocent people and our troops. These are dangerous people.”

Those who would close Gitmo, once they figure out how and where to put these guys, would give them all the benefit of the doubt.

During a press conference, President Bush once articulated a common-sense reason such people should be held as prisoners of war at Gitmo and held until the war on terror ends: They will return to kill us again.

“Some have been released to their previous countries, and they got out and they went on the battlefield again,” Bush said. “I have an obligation, as do all of us who are holding office, to protect our people.”

So do we all. Keep them locked at Gitmo and throw away the key.

h1

Cartoon: Top Secret Memos

June 1, 2009

top secret memos

29 April 09

IBD

h1

Gitmo NIMBY

May 22, 2009

Gitmo NIMBY

War On Terror: Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell says closing the terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo would “make Americans less safe.” He’s right, but Republicans need to sharpen the point to win this key battle.

GOP opposition has put Democrats on the defensive, and the Obama administration so far is not budging from its promise to close Gitmo by the first of next year. The defense secretary says up to 100 detainees may be transferred to U.S. jails. And the attorney general wants to free and resettle at least 17 of them in the Washington suburbs.

Yes, Democrats now say they’ll deny funding for the closing, but it’s just a tactical retreat until the White House can come back with a plan to close the camp and satisfy that there are adequate safeguards.

Shuttering Gitmo by January 2010 was one of first executive orders President Obama signed. Democrats would be loath to hand him such a humiliating defeat. It would be a slap to not only the new commander-in-chief but all the antiwar liberals who voted for him.

Their arguments for bringing Gitmo prisoners here do not withstand serious analysis. Among the standouts:

1. They’d be treated more humanely.

First of all, the remaining 240 detainees are the worst of the worst — nobody wants them, not even the Saudis — and they include five of the 9/11 planners. But if human rights is the issue, they’d actually be treated better down in Cuba, where they enjoy accommodations few, if any, jailhouses would offer.

These include classes in English and other subjects, including art.

2. They won’t escape.

“Our prisons are filled with dangerous people, including terrorists,” argues Sen. Dick Durbin. “And not a single one has escaped.” But they have escaped from our high-security prison in Bagram — and one even tried to shoot her way out. So that danger is real.

None, however, has escaped from our highly controlled military fortress on that isolated island in Guantanamo Bay. And it’s a 90-mile swim to our closest shore if one did.

Also, al-Qaida’s leaders have exhorted followers to free “the brothers” in American custody. They often mention the Blind Sheik by name. He’s in Supermax, so he can look forward to rotting there.

But the proposed jailhouse in Alexandria, Va., is not Supermax, or equipped to handle multiple high-risk prisoners or an outside attack from terrorists. Al-Qaida has pulled off more than one jailbreak in Yemen, for example.

3. They deserve a fair trial.

This is a favorite argument of Rep. Jim Moran. But any public proceedings would turn into show trials and play right into al-Qaida’s political agenda. Moran is literally begging the administration to dump the terrorists in his Northern Virginia district, and nobody can figure out why. It’s simple: He’s the second-largest recipient of Arab-American PAC money in Congress.

And his constituents are predominantly Muslims who’ve come out in mass support of al-Qaida terrorists previously held and tried at the federal courthouse in Alexandria. If past trials are any predictor, Moran’s constituents might rally in support of Gitmo defendants. This would only supply the political platform they desire to rub salt into the wound of 9/11. No thanks.

4. It’s OK to release “innocent” Uighurs in the U.S.; their beef is with the Chinese, so they’re not a threat.

At least 60 other detainees who also swore they were “innocent” goatherds caught in the “wrong place at the wrong time” in Afghanistan have rejoined the jihad — and some have already carried out terrorist acts against U.S. targets like the embassy in Yemen.

Why risk releasing 17 more of them in, of all places, Moran’s district, in the shadow of the capital, where they can simply melt into the local Muslim population out of view of law enforcement?

We’re just asking for trouble.

h1

Terrorist Hotbed

May 4, 2009

Terrorist Hotbed

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, May 01, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Politics: The Pentagon will have to build a facility for the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay if their current housing is closed. We know the perfect spot: a military prison in Cuba on a naval base called Gitmo.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday that he has asked for $50 million to build a prison in the U.S. that would house the enemy combatants who were sent to Guantanamo after being captured in the war on terror.

If the brig at Gitmo is closed, as many as 100 of the roughly 250 inmates there would be moved to the U.S. The rest could walk away because the evidence against them, while good enough to keep them incarcerated in a military prison as enemies of America, might be inadmissible in a criminal court on U.S. soil.

Who is going to want these 100 radicals, many of them linked to al-Qaida and the Taliban, in their backyard? And where will those who could no longer be detained end up? Back in the battlefield fighting U.S. troops?

For good reason, Gates said he “fully” expected “to have 535 pieces of legislation before this is over saying ‘Not in my district, not in my state.’ ” No one in this country is going to be comfortable with terrorists who want to kill Americans being housed down the road. No facility can possibly be isolated enough, not in the vast expanses of Alaska or Texas, in the remote swamps of Florida or in the sprawling deserts of Nevada.

The prison facility at Guantanamo, an ideal location for housing suspected terrorists, has become an open sore of controversy. The political left, seizing on the Bush administration’s insistence that the detainees didn’t have the protections spelled out in the Geneva Conventions because they belonged to no organized military, has characterized it as a torture chamber.

Along with the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Gitmo became a symbol of the Bush White House’s alleged hostility to human and constitutional rights and its depravity in general.

After years of demands that the Gitmo prison be closed, Barack Obama heeded them upon becoming president. On Jan. 22, the country’s new executive signed an order requiring the facility to be shut down within the year.

Problem solved? Not quite.

There’s that little matter of finding a place for men who live to kill and would be happy to get their hands on an American the same way a wolf would like to tear apart a chicken.

Closing the detainee camp at Gitmo will solve nothing. Whatever liberties that interrogators might have taken with the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo can be taken at a new facility.

Miserable conditions, if they indeed exist, can be transferred or created anew, as well. Different housing would merely salve the fevered minds who refuse to acknowledge the Islamist war on civilization.

And for what? A useless political victory for those who traffic in mindless symbolism over a man who hasn’t been in the White House even four months?

The debate over Gitmo has been marked by more hysteria than rational thought. Have any of its critics wondered why the Bush administration chose to send suspected terrorists there rather than to a federal prison within the 50 states? Could it have been for security reasons?

It’s reasonable to believe that the Bush White House simply thought it wise to keep the enemy combatants off U.S. soil and away from civilian Americans. It’s unreasonable to believe that they were put there just because the previous administration wanted them in a place where they could be tortured away from prying eyes.

The best place for the detainees at the Guantanamo base is right where they are. Why waste $50 million in taxpayers’ money for new construction costs, as well as the tens of millions that were already spent to build facilities that will be, in Gates’ word, mothballed? To gain nothing but hollow political points?

At Gitmo, the detainees are free to face Mecca when they pray. They have access to Islamic reading material and eat hot halal — approved by Islamic law — meals.

They are not in stocks, stretched out on the rack or systematically beaten. They are exactly where they should be. Pragmatism, not politics, is what should determine their location.

h1

Ex-Gitmo inmate REJOIN CELLS

February 12, 2009

Detainees released from Guantanamo Bay are increasingly returning to the fight against the United States and its allies, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday.

Sixty-one detainees released from the U.S. Naval base prison in Cuba are believed to have rejoined the fight, Morrell said, citing data from December. That’s up from 37 as of last March, he said.

..Obama wants to close the prison but has yet to say what he will do with the estimated 250 current detainees and future captives in the global war on terrorism.

USA TODAY – 14 Jan. 09

h1

An Open Letter To President Obama

February 9, 2009

EXCELLENT!

An Open Letter To President Obama

It is with a heavy heart for my country that I write to you today. I pray that you will be inspired, challenged, and that you will reconsider decisions that you have made in the past week since you took the oath to preserve, protect and defend our constitution.

Many in my family have taken a similar oath in the military including my sons Kristofer & Marc, my son-in-law Chris, my brother Jim and my Father.

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

They along with every other Veteran have paid for my freedoms and the freedoms of every American. They have given and sacrificed so much. Some have paid the ultimate price as my son Marc Alan Lee did on Aug 2, 2006. He was the first Navy SEAL killed in Iraq. He made the choice to stand up into the direct line of fire three times that day fighting for the rights of those who couldn’t fight and bravely defending the defenseless. He told me we were making a difference in Iraq and he knew it was the right thing to do. He fought the terrorists over in Iraq so that we would not have to fight them on American soil or fear another attack on our homeland.

We have heard the success stories in Ramadi and the Al-Anbar province where Marc fought. He directly impacted the history of the world. My son successfully completed his mission that day but it required the sacrifice of his life to save other’s. He chose to do that, he was a young man who valued others lives more important than his own.

I remember the day I found out I was pregnant with him, just two weeks after a divorce from his abusive Father. I had a 3 year old son and an 18 month old daughter and didn’t get support from their Father. How would we ever survive? I could barely afford food for the two little ones I had, let alone another baby. There were those who told me that abortion was the solution. I already had an abortion at 17 and it would have been easy to do that again, but I had learned the hard way that abortion was taking the life of an unborn child and wasn’t a solution.

As a single parent for most of their life, I struggled – sometimes working 3 jobs to take care of them. It wasn’t easy and there wasn’t any light at the end of the tunnel, but by God’s grace and mercy I have three amazing children.

Can you imagine how different this world would have been without Marc? I still hear amazing stories of lives that have been inspired and touched by this amazing man who gave his life away so that others may live. It could even be your life that Marc spared as he fought the terrorists and brought them the justice they deserved. Marc and others just like him have fought and given you and me the gift of life by defending us against enemies foreign and domestic.

This past week a nation watched as you signed Executive Orders that have horrific consequences.

You didn’t waste any time signing an order to close Guantanamo Detention Camps. My son gave up his life fighting the terrorists so we wouldn’t have to face them in America ever again, and now your actions will bring these vile radical terrorists to American soil and give them the same rights as citizens of America have?

I know any major decisions that I make I get the facts first hand, I research the information, I weigh the outcome or consequences and I have a plan that I implement. You have not even been to GITMO. You have no plan what to do with the terrorists. I just retuned from a trip to Guantanamo. I saw first hand that we are taking the moral high ground. At times the terrorists have more than our brave troops do.

While visiting the detention camps, I looked into the eyes of a terrorist who glared at me while motioning he was going to cut my head off. Please DO NOT bring these self admitted murders to the land of the free and home of the brave. These cold hearted killers willingly confess that they are “still in Jihad.”



You also reversed the Mexico City Policy and in a time of economic disaster in the US are allowing our tax dollars to be sent to international organizations that provide abortions. We are losing our homes, our jobs, and our nation is in financial crisis and you’ve decided to use our finances to kill babies in other nations?? You’re concerned about the higher moral ground with the terrorists who murder for “Allah” and yet you won’t honor and obey Christ and defend the defenseless unborn baby?

My son took a stand and gave up his life defending the defenseless. He knew it was the right thing to do. He made a moral decision and displayed his courage and character and laid down his life for what he believed in. PLEASE Mr. President display courage and a noble character and do what is right! Don’t yearn for the praises of the liberals, the media, or European and Middle Eastern nations, yearn for the praises of the one who created us, our Lord Jesus Christ.

You have taken an oath to defend and protect me and this nation. PLEASE reconsider your decision on closing GITMO and honor our troops by acknowledging that dangerous terrorists have been captured and try them according to military law in GITMO. Honor the sacrifice of my son and all of those who have given their very last breathe for you and for me.

Protect and value the life of every unborn child, they are a gift from God no matter what the circumstances were at the time they were conceived. They could grow up one day and change the history of the world. I’ve seen it happen before my very eyes through Marc’s life. I have felt God’s forgiveness for the life I took but I often wonder what God had intended for that precious life.

Please know that I pray for you and for this nation. My prayer comes from II Kings 18:

(6)“That you would hold fast to the LORD, that you would not depart from following Him, that you would keep His commandments; which the LORD commanded Moses.”

And Mr. President as a result of doing that;

(7a) “The LORD was with Him; he prospered wherever he went.”

Marc left his indelible mark on the world, and impacted history. Mr. President, what mark will you leave and how will you impact history. What are you willing to selflessly give so that other’s may live?

Standing in the gap,

Debbie Lee


h1

GITMO GONE

January 14, 2009

Gitmo Gone

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | 14 JANUARY 2009

War On Terror: On Jan. 20, 1981, Ronald Reagan welcomed the return of American hostages in victory. On Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama will welcome the closing of Guantanamo in appeasement. Yes, change has come.



For anti-war liberals, closing the prisoner of war camp at Guantanamo has long been a cause celebre, one the president-elect warmly embraced.

On ABC’s “This Week,” he gave supporters pause when he suggested actually closing the facility within his first 100 days would be a “challenge.” At least one Obama transition team adviser reassured them on Monday not to worry.

An executive order to close the camp could be issued as early as Inauguration Day. The pathway to trials in American courts with American lawyers and American rights would be set for those jihadists captured on the battlefield trying to kill Americans.

One of the problems is exactly where to relocate the remaining 248 prisoners. Few places are standing in line for the privilege. Maybe ACORN could use a few more volunteers.

This moment stands in stark contrast to the day in 1981 when President Reagan took the oath of office as American hostages were winging their way back to freedom after 444 days of captivity in a Tehran prison. The mullahs set them free rather than deal with a resolute new commander in chief, and in the knowledge they wouldn’t have Jimmy Carter to kick around anymore.

Now it is we who are capitulating. Last May, the Defense Department said at least 36 former Guantanamo detainees are “confirmed or suspected” of having returned to the battlefield. If Obama orders a shift out of Gitmo, you can be sure more terrorists will return to the front.

Among those previously released are Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi, who was first detained in Afghanistan and spent three years at Gitmo before being released in 2005. Al-Ajmi returned to Kuwait and last May went to Iraq to become a suicide bomber. He was successful in his new line of work.

Abdullah Mehsud spent 25 months at Gitmo until his release from such inhuman bondage in March 2004. While out on his own recognizance, he returned to his native South Waziristan where he rebuilt and led a Taliban cadre estimated at 5,000 foot soldiers conducting cross-border raids from Pakistan.

Guantanamo is home to some of the world’s most dangerous Islamists: Chechen jihadists, Afghan mujahedeen and Taliban fighters, and al-Qaida terrorists from across the Middle East and North Africa. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, architect of the USS Cole bombing in 2000, are among the 14 “high value” detainees.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Gitmo detainees have not been held without some form of adjudication. All have undergone two levels of review, one to determine their status as enemy combatants, the other an annual review to determine their fitness for release. Obviously this part is not an exact science.

Guantanamo and the incarceration and interrogation of its inhabitants have saved thousands of American lives and untold tragedy. While it has existed, America’s enemies have had a harder time plying their trade.

In his first post-election interview with “60 Minutes” last Nov. 16, Obama said: “I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I’ve said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture, and I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture.

“Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.”

We are more concerned with guaranteeing America’s survival.