Posts Tagged ‘Guantanamo Bay’

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

Guantanamo Bay Update

September 2, 2009

Guantanamo Bay Update – Another Terrorist Freed By President Obama

Dear Military Families United Member and Supporter,

Sign Our Don’t Free Terrorists Petition

As you read in your morning paper, another detainee was freed yesterday and released in Afghanistan. Mohammed Jawad, an al Qaeda operative, was arrested by Afghan police in December 2002 for throwing a grenade into a vehicle containing two US troops and an Afghan interpreter. His actions wounded three people and today Jawad is free in the same country that our brave troops are fighting in right now.
Military Families United has been at the forefront of this issue and will continue to relentlessly fight to ensure that the most effective facilities are used to hold these dangerous terrorists; right now that facility is Guantanamo Bay. Below are some news articles that we wanted to share with you concerning Mohammed Jawad.
To read MFU’s statement on Mohammed Jawad click here.
Obama Administration Releases Gitmo Detainee Mohammed Jawad
ABC News
Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mohammed Jawad is in Afghanistan and will be released into his family’s custody today.
Kirk Lippold, former USS Cole Commander and a senior fellow at Military Families United, decried that, “in a what has become a sadly familiar pattern of decisions, the Obama Administration has released without trial Mohammed Jawad, a terrorist who attacked and wounded two U.S. soldiers and an Afghan citizen.” Lippold called the release “just the latest example of dangerous decisions made by the Administration aimed at keeping a reckless campaign promise.”
Read More
Guantanamo Detainee Released to Afghanistan
Fox News
The Obama administration reportedly has released a prisoner from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp accused of attacking U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Kirk Lippold, former USS Cole commander and fellow at Military Families United, criticized the decision in a statement Monday, calling it part of a “sadly familiar pattern.”
“No coherent policy in the war on terror. No comprehensive plan in place to deal with the future of Guantanamo Bay detainees. No accountability for terrorists who harm our brave fighting forces,” he said.
Read More
Guantánamo Detainee Released
New York Times
The prisoner, Mohammed Jawad, who is now about 21, was flown to Kabul, the Afghan capital, in the afternoon and was released to family members late in the evening.
Mr. Jawad was arrested in Kabul in December 2002 and accused of tossing a grenade at an unmarked vehicle in an attack that wounded two American soldiers and their interpreter. The Afghan police delivered him into American custody, and about a month later he was sent to Guantánamo Bay.
Read More

h1

Cartoon: Terrorists in Palau

June 18, 2009

h1

Terrorist Hotbed

May 28, 2009

IBD 4 May 09

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

Tom Sowell: Bigger Menace May Be Gov’t…

April 22, 2009

Bigger Menace May Be Gov’t, Not Extremists

By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Tuesday, April 21, 2009 4:20 PM PT

While the rest of us may be worried about violent Mexican drug gangs on our border, or about terrorists who are going to be released from Guantanamo, the director of homeland security is worried about “right-wing extremists.”

Just who are these right-wing extremists?

According to an official document of the Department of Homeland Security, right-wing extremists include “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.” It also includes those “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.”

If you fit into any of these categories, you may not have realized that you are considered a threat to national security. But apparently the Obama administration has its eye on you.

According to the same official document, the Department of Homeland Security “has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence.” But somehow they just know that you right-wingers are itching to unleash terror somewhere, somehow.

So-called “honor killings” by Muslims in the United States, including a recent beheading of his wife by a leader of one of the American Muslim organizations, does not seem to arouse any concern by the Department of Homeland Security.

When it comes to the thuggery of Acorn — its members harassing the homes of bankers and even the home of Sen. Phil Gramm when he opposed things that Acorn favored — the Department of Homeland Security apparently sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil.

Maybe they are too busy worrying about right-wing “extremists” who don’t like abortions or illegal immigration, or who favor the division of power between the state and federal governments established by the Constitution.

In one sense, the Department of Homeland Security paper is silly. In another sense, it can be sinister as a revealing and disturbing sign of the preoccupations and priorities of this administration — and their willingness to witch-hunt and demonize those who dare to disagree with them.

Reportedly, the FBI and the Defense Department are cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security in investigations of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. That people who have put their lives on the line for this country are made the target of what is called the Vigilant Eagle program suggests that this administration may be more of a threat than the people it is investigating.

All this activity takes on a more sinister aspect against the background of one of the statements of Barack Obama during last year’s election campaign that got remarkably little attention in the media. He suggested the creation of a federal police force, comparable in size to the military.

Why such an organization? For what purpose?

Since there are state and local police forces all across the country, an FBI to investigate federal crimes and a Department of Justice to prosecute those who commit them, as well as a Defense Department with military forces, just what role would a federal police force play?

Maybe it was just one of those bright ideas that gets floated during an election campaign. Yet there was no grass-roots demand for any such federal police nor any media clamor for it, so there was not even any political reason to suggest such a thing.

What would be different about a new federal police force, as compared with existing law enforcement and military forces? It would be a creation of the Obama administration, run by people appointed from top to bottom by that administration — and without the conflicting loyalties of those steeped in existing military and law enforcement traditions.

In short, a federal police force could become President Obama’s personal domestic political army, his own storm troopers.

Perhaps there will never be such a federal police force. But the targeting of individuals and groups who believe in some of the fundamental values on which this country was founded, and people who have demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering for military service, suggests that this potential for political abuse is worth watching, as Obama tries to remake America to fit his vision.

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.