Pajamas Media

155 Comments

1. David W. Lincoln:

Well done Gabe. Your mom and dad are to be complimented, for the kind of person their offspring happens to be is an important indication as to who they are as persons.

As for thinking the worse of folks in the military, I say it is more of an indication of who is doing the second guessing, rather than those who are being second guessed.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:31 am 2. Sarah:

Unfortunately those in opposition to Guantanamo are the ones with the most readily available media voice. We all know how much our self-proclaimed “unbiased” media loves to make America look like the bad guy. After all, who in their right mind imprisons and “tortures” someone that is trying to kill as many Americans as possible, the idea is ludicrous! We should be offering these poor misguided souls anger management counseling and possible citizenship, after all they are certainly just misunderstood right?
Let those with the loudest voices keep burying their heads in the sand while those that truly love America will continue to do WHATEVER IS NECESSARY to protect it. There are probably more people than you would think that are in favor or shooting all the “detainees” and letting God sort out the mess.
GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS and may they be doubly blessed for preserving the freedoms of those that have no appreciation for it!

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:57 am 3. Pat J:

So Gabe. Did you get a chance to ask any of the detainees what they are charged with?

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:31 am 4. Pete:

Umm just a little point, The Geneva Convention?

Incarceration without trial?

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:51 am 5. Sarah:

See the above post from Pat J. for a perfect “case in point” of those that enjoy the freedoms our troops are fighting for and have no appreciation for what it costs.
I could care less if they have been “charged” with anything, quite obviously they presented themselves as suspicious characters in a war zone to have been captured in the first place therefore, it is perfectly within the right of the U.S. military to hold them until all reasonable doubt can be expunged that they are or are not guilty and pose no threat to the United States.
Once again, wouldn’t it be easier for everybody if we just shot them all (or cut off their heads like they do to the U.S. troops they capture)? That way people wouldn’t have to worry about whether or not they are all getting the legal representation necessary to put them back out on our streets to blow us the next chance they get.
Not an American citizen = doesn’t get all the perks that come with that classification (usually if somebody is shooting at you it removes all doubt that they are one of the bad guys, why is this so difficult for some people to understand?)

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:03 am 6. Word to the wise:

Pete, they are not signatories to the GC. AQ is not a country. The Taliban is not a country. They are unlawful combatants. They could be summarily shot in the field. Why is it that you liberals cannot ever get your facts straight on this? Why is it that you so support the enemies of this country? It never fails.
These people would wipe you and your whole family off the face of the earth if they got a chance. What garbage you liberals all are.

If there is another major attack on this country, there will be a reckoning with the Left in this nation, do not forget that.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:06 am 7. Anton:

Pat and Pete; almost (I would venture to say all, but I am not sure of the exact circumstances of the capture of ALL of the detainees) all of the detainees have exempted themselves from International Law and very specifically the Geneva Accords by fighting without a proper uniform.

In days past they would have been shot out of hand, as the Geneva Conventions specifically deprive them of the rights given to uniformed combatants.

Google “The Geneva Conventions” and read it before you misquote it. They deprive themselves of any of the protections offered by the Accords as soon as they fight without a uniform, they have NO rights, they are entitled to no rights, despite our boneheads at SCOTUS theycannot have “rights” created for them. They are by the clearest definition of the word “outlaws”.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:07 am 8. uknowit:

Great article and shows how people are mislead or simply don’t want to know the facts. Also, regarding Pete’s comment, the Geneva Convention does not apply to “civilians” or terrorist who are involved in armed conflict. If you look at past history, which I’m assuming most people who come up with sensational assumptions don’t, captured terrorists or soldiers not wearing a uniform were simply shot. German soldiers caught in the battle of the Bulge w/o uniform were tried and shot. I’m not saying we should do this but our system, based on the complexity of 21st century warfare, is fair. Finally, the flaws of the civilian court system will mean a lot of these people will go free.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:08 am 9. Sarah:

Right….the Geneva Convention….I forgot that Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were real sticklers for following that choice piece of legislation, I can’t believe I didn’t think of that!

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:09 am 10. Squirmn:

@ Pete:

Can you please tell me of any justice system that has a trial before holding someone? If you even take bail and bond as an example there is an arraignment, a pre-trial, and then the trial. During ALL of this time the individual could potentially be sitting in jail. The reason for this is because the accused could leave. I, for one, do not trust that they would/could behave appropriately on their own and then return to court. Do you?

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:31 am 11. Anton:

This also why the Hamas degenerates do not deserve any better treatment than a rabid dog gets; as quick a death as possible.

It’s real simple; No Uniform = No Rights. If you can’t handle fighting like a soldier don’t expect the treatment accorded to one.

If your sort of heroism is killing little girls for going to school, or throwing acid on a woman for daring to expose her face, you don’t get to claim the rights granted to civilized soldiers.

The upshot of the whole thing is that half of the scum in Gitmo can’t go home as their “home” countries will execute them for their crimes. We, as a treaty bound country, cannot send them to a certain death (which they so richly deserve). Maybe they can move in with our nuanced friends, Pete and Pat J, that would be justice.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:33 am 12. Jay:

Just spreading the wonderful news…

If you are a military soldier that is need of some extra assistance , then come and check out “The David H Brooks Foundation for American Wounded Soldiers”
http://www.davidhbrooks.com

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:35 am 13. Judy, NYC:

sarah: the only people who are going to need anger management counseling are most americans, who are on the verge of actually screaming out our windows that we cannot take it anymore. the miscreants are laughing up their sleeves at us. and no wonder, we are acting stupidly and as weak as a string. where this comes from is anybody’s guess. there is a massive amount of denial here, like a sludge that is some sort of brain virus. americans have a history of this. although we are very brave and persevere once we finally get into it, it takes a lot of doing, a threat so enormous and so in our face, like a terrorist action here.

in just a few years, we have forgotten the thousands murdered at the world trade center. to forget them, is to deny their lives as well as their deaths.

sad, crazy world. the bad are good. the good are bad. through the looking glass, we are just as fragile.

how can anyone ever forget seeing a video that these monsters, who are the same as all their cohorts in spirit, created to show us journalist daniel pearl’s head being cut off.

apparently, yes, we can.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:38 am 14. Peter the Bubblehead:

“These inaccurate and deliberately misleading comments made by Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT)”

You cite the reason for the false portrayal of Gitmo in your own sentence, Gabe.
1) D = Democrat
2) VT = Vermont
Says it all right there!

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:51 am 15. Peter the Bubblehead:

4. Pete wrote:
Umm just a little point, The Geneva Convention?
Incarceration without trial?

Peter responds: Hey, Pete, how aboout you try reading the Geneva Convention before trying to cite it.
These prisoners are enemy combatants, not wearing uniforms or owing allegiance to any recognized state, therefore not accorded the protections of the Geneva Convention. Rightfully, international law says enemy combatants can legally be shot on sight and/or capture. It says something for the integrity of the US military that we don’t, but instead give them comfortable cells, clothing and food. How many of these prisoners do YOU suppose would go right back to trying to kill Americans (and I mean ALL Americans, even YOU, not just American military) if they were just let loose? Go ahead and make a guess. I’ll wait for your answer.

Jan 15, 2009 - 11:57 am 16. Rachel:

Gitmo was never meant to be a Country Club for crying outloud. I feel that the military only do their duty and that is guard and take care of the worse of worse! Those are not good guys in there. When did we get so tolerant of murderers, sex offenders, serial killers, etc., etc., etc. Certainly we should not accept contemptable behavior but it looks like our media and justice system is doing just that. Now what do you think they would do to our troops and media if they stepped out of line. Read Sarahs comment about Daniel Pearl. We actually viewed that on TV. They weren’t safisfied to behead him they had to video it and it streamed into millions of living rooms in America. Are we so afraid we are going to “offend” these tyrants that we should treat them like royalty? I think not. They in my estimation should feel lucky to be alive.
They certainly didn’t care about their victims. So Gabe, if a place like Gitmo offends you why not stay in America and write about things that do not make you uncomfortable. But first go ask the loved ones of the victims how they feel about that ratty bunch. God Bless America & our troops. We should do everything and anything to protect our people.Abu Ghraib was a black eye but the military dealt with that justly and swiftly so as they say “No Sweat”!

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:06 pm 17. Peter the Bubblehead:

16. Rachel wrote:
So Gabe, if a place like Gitmo offends you why not stay in America and write about things that do not make you uncomfortable.

Peter clarifies: Rachel, you have misinterpreted Gabe’s article. He is praising Gitmo and the men and women who serve there and pointing out the neccessity of such a place in our war against Islamic extremism.

Please go back and re-read the article again.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:10 pm 18. Chippy:

I think we should send all these enemy combatants to Chicago, Illinois. That town really loves and votes for total losers. Maybe they can get a union job working for ol’ Mayor Daley. They can also attend Trinity church and hear sermons from some kook who supports everything they stand for. The “Hate America Crowd” would really fall in love with them the same way they fell for ol’ Barry. After a few years one of these enemy combatants could run for some kind of public office. After all, by then, most of these people would be eligible for U.S. citizenship. If not, they could easily obtain a phony birth certificate.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:16 pm 19. ThinkingPerson:

Re: #3. Pat J:

“So Gabe. Did you get a chance to ask any of the detainees what they are charged with?”

Pat J….I used to think your were somewhat rational but I am seriously sickened by your post this time. You defend terrorists and throw American service men and women under the bus? Just in case you didn’t get your liberal wing-nut memo this week on your Blackberry from Obama, Detainee = Terrorist. Let me guess, you’re also the type that stands up for the bankrobber when he gets shot on the way out of the bank right? You have lost all credibility today. Sickening how low liberals will sink. Hopefully you aren’t an American citizen Pat.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:16 pm 20. ThinkingPerson:

One last note to Pat J…. Do tell us, what was Daniel Pearl charged with before they cut his head off in Iraq? Let me guess, you feel sorry for the perpetrators of his death because they had bad childhoods right? Pathetic.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:18 pm 21. ThinkingPerson:

#4 Pete…Incarceration without trial you ask? Moot point. Do more research next time.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/911.charges/index.html

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:22 pm 22. ThinkingPerson:

#4 Pete…Yet another Gitmo trial….

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/21/Gitmo_detainees_military_trial_begins/UPI-16541216653185/

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:24 pm 23. ThinkingPerson:

#4 Pete…Could there be MORE trials of terrorist at Gitmo? Why yes!…

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/18/america/18detain.php

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:26 pm 24. Travis T. Cowsill:

I for one am really glad Obama is, as I suspected he would, actually working to go forward with his promises in order to-invent the image and protocols of the country.

I only hope that Bush and his cronies are held accountable for the crimes they committed in the name of security.

I believe , as most of the comments above relate, that our enemies are ruthless, inhuman animals, and yes, I have no problem wishing a quick dispatching of them to see whomever it is they kill in the name of. That having been said, the rules of combat and the taking of Prisoners of war are something we would not broken were the tables reversed.

You can’t have it both ways, which is exactly what Bush and the rest tried to get away with.

Good riddance to Guantanamo.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:32 pm 25. Sean:

What a garbage piece of writing. I don’t see any value in this article or ANY EVIDENCE presented in it whatsoever that tells of the “Good” Gitmo. All that is presented is what US at officials at Gitmo tell the author, and oh what a surprise, they say it’s a great place.

I can’t believe all the right-wing, Neo-con idiots on here. Forget the Geneva convention, we have something called a Constitution. Gitmo was specifically created to get around the Constitution. I for one, am sick of the Fear propaganda employed by the Bush Administration since 9/11 to wipe their asses with the Constitution and strip us of our Constitutional liberties. Our soldiers are fighting for our constitutional liberties and freedom??? Really? That’s what they’re doing? Funny, considering since the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we have less Constitutional freedoms and civil liberties in this Country.

For those of you who don’t think Gitmo and our entire handling of the War on Terror has been one big embarrassing blunder after another, you obviously must be Nationalists or Facists who have never left this country in the last 7 or so years. It’s not just vast portions of the Arab world that hate us, but vast portions of the entire world.

Also, many national security experts, journalists, politicians, etc. from both sides of the political spectrum have shown how our War on terror has created more enemies for our country, than it has gotten rid. If our actions aren’t enough, every US made and supplied weapon that Israel uses against Gaza only increases this problem exponentially.

Also, I suggest many of you brush up on the history of the disputed land of Gaza. Israel, is the one that is occupying land that is not there. I don’t condone Hamas’ actions or cowardliness one bit, but for the Palestinian people as whole, you tell me how you would feel and react if another Country illegally occupied the US with no end in sight? Would you be angry? Would you fight back? Would our allies get pissed at the occupier? Would they retaliate on our behalf? So don’t be surprised then when Palestine’s Arab allies hate Israel, and in turn it’s biggest supplier of aid and arms, the US.

What all you people feel to realize is that these people didn’t just wake up one day and decide to hate America. Our CIA, NSA, FBI and foreign policies have done more than we like to admit to, to get us to this position. Where are those WMD’s in Iraq again? Where’s Saddam’s connection to Al Queda again (considering Osama Bin Laden’s first instance of hatred towards the US started with the Saudis using American Troops to protect their borders during the First Gulf War, instead of Bin Laden’s CIA trained Mujaheddin fighters (convenient how the CIA funded and armed his army of fighters to fight the Russians and Commies during the Cold War).

Finally, don’t sit here and tell me how the American people are innocent. Core principle of a democracy is that it is a form of government of, for and by the people. That means we bear blame for the good and bad that comes out of our government and its foreign policies. Does that give people the right to kill us or attack us? No it doesn’t. But when we the people in a democracy are brainwashed and complacent and don’t question the decisions our elected officials make on our behalf, we are no longer innocent “civilians.”

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:40 pm 26. Peter the Bubblehead:

24. Travis T. Cowsill:

Peter writes: Hey, Travis, you volunteering to take in the Gitmo detainees? Sounds like it.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:42 pm 27. Anton:

Travis ole buddy, where are you sending them?

BTW Obama is not going to close Gitmo any time soon, keep up with the latest naunced changes pal.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:42 pm 28. Cybergeezer:

History shall judge the U.S. as creating the “friendly war”. This so called war is really a skirmish; It’s like weeding out gang members in any American neighborhood using the National Guard. And that’s what UBL has become; Nothing but a gang leader.
I cannot fathom anything more useless, denigrating, or insulting of a human being than to teach them that their only purpose in life is to die and kill another when you do.
Can anyone pose a reason not to rid the world of parasites like this?

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:44 pm 29. DonJoe:

4. Pete said:
“Umm just a little point, The Geneva Convention? Incarceration without trial?”

Dear Misled Pete:
Word to the wise, wisely points out; “…they are not signatories to the GC. AQ is not a country. The Taliban is not a country. They are unlawful combatants. They could be summarily shot in the field. Why is it that you liberals cannot ever get your facts straight on this? Why is it that you so support the enemies of this country? It never fails.” I might add neither are Hamas or Hezbollah. However, they are all Islamists.

Islamists are only interested in world domination. Islam is a political system, not a “religion”, steeped in brutality. There are NO moderates in Islam PERIOD. The “so called moderates” create a stealth jihad, using or Constitution and wealth against us, while funding the “fundamentalist.” There are only 3 choices in Islam;

1) Convert
2) Submit (become a slave)(Dhimmi)
3) Die (beheading is the death of choice)
PERIOD!

You need to exit you cyber/ivory tower and check out the “Real” world before making such naive judgments.

Where were you on 9/11/2001?

Have you already forgotten?

I recommend you view and read the following……

World trade center Jumpers;
What the American media wouldn’t show you!
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/never-forget-911-jumpers-from-hell-graphic-images/

Beheadings;
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/beheadings-r-us/

Islam permits you to have sex with your daughters and promotes pedophilia;
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/islam-permits-you-to-have-sex-with-your-daughter/

Update: MUMBAI – Several hostages were SEXUALLY MUTILATED BY MUSLIM SAVAGES
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/update-mumbai-several-hostages-were-sexually-mutilated-by-muslim-savages/

Palestinian Justice:
http://shoebat.com/palestinian_justice.php

The Myths of Islam:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Myths-of-Islam.htm

Recommended Resource:
God’s War on Terror & Why We Want to Kill You
by Walid Shoebat, former PLO terrorist
http://shoebat.com/

…….then make up your mind.

Proportional response? Are you sure you would back that?

The dispute about Israel is not a war of land or geography but anti-semitism of the worst kind but it is now more dangerous than Nazi Germany because it has a religious twist.

This video should shock you and the world to recognize the real problem.
http://shoebat.com/media/palestinian_tv.wmv

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:47 pm 30. Sean:

Anton, Gitmo WILL BE CLOSED. The new AG flat out said during his hearing today that Gitmo will be closed, Waterboarding is torture and that the US will not engage in such actions going forward.

Obama was a constitutional lawyer. I doubt GW or better yet President Cheney even knew what it was. Hell, I find it hard to imagine that GW can even pronounce it right, kind of like Nuclear.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:48 pm 31. Anton:

Travis said;

“…and yes, I have no problem wishing a quick dispatching of them to see whomever it is they kill in the name of. That having been said, the rules of combat and the taking of Prisoners of war are something we would not broken were the tables reversed”

So it is OK to give them that “quick dispatching” now?

I am still trying to figure out the send sentence. Do you mean that if We were the terrorists we would observe the rules of the Geneva Conventions?

What crimes? Please cite the law that was broken in the commission of said crimes.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:48 pm 32. Peter the Bubblehead:

25. Sean wrote:
What a garbage piece of writing. I don’t see any value in this article or ANY EVIDENCE presented in it whatsoever that tells of the “Good” Gitmo. All that is presented is what US at officials at Gitmo tell the author, and oh what a surprise, they say it’s a great place.

Peter responds: Hey, Sean, try reading the article again, particularly the first paragraph.

Gabe WENT to Gitmo. He reported on what he saw WITH HIS OWN EYES.

Why don’t YOU take a trip to Gitmo before you ignorantly start putting down other people’s work.

Jan 15, 2009 - 12:51 pm 33. Sarah:

Sean, if you’re honest with yourself you’ll admit to the fact that our government hasn’t been working for the people of the United States for a very long time. I think this would be quite obvious with the whole bailout fiasco in which nobody seems to know what has happened to 350 BILLION dollars.
I have been a dedicated “questioner” of my elected officials and this seems to have no impact whatsoever so are you proposing an overthrow of the government since they no longer speak for those whom they claim to represent? It kinda sounds like it….
Also, you either ARE the biggest bully in the schoolyard or you give your lunch money to him – considering the alternative I could really care less what the rest of the world thinks of America, jealousy tends to get all kinds of people’s panties in a twist.
P.S. What did this article have to do with Gaza…did I just miss it on my first time through it or did you just feel the need to go on a rabbit trail rant….

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:05 pm 34. Sarah:

In reference to:
“Anton, Gitmo WILL BE CLOSED. The new AG flat out said during his hearing today that Gitmo will be closed, Waterboarding is torture and that the US will not engage in such actions going forward.”

Obama also promised me $1,000 tax refund and a bunch of other free stuff so unitl I start seeing those promises come true you’ll forgive those of us that tend to doubt what he and those in his administration have to say….

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:10 pm 35. Anton:

Sean, nice load of invective, the only thing you left out was sayng Bush=Hitler.

Read up on the history indeed. Israel was founded by UN Mandate in 1948(yes that UN, the one all you lefties love), the surrounding Arab states tried a war of extermination against them. As with all Arab armies they got their ass handed to them. They tried again in 1967 and 1973 with Russian help, and again were crushed.(Talk about disproportional response, every arab with a border vs tiny Israel).

The problem is the the Jordanians (the nation that the “palestinians” used to be part of) don’t want anything to do with the palestinians. Neither do their “brother” Arabs the Syrians, the Egyptians or the Lebanese. They are willing to feed them some weapons from time to time but won’t accept them as part of their nation.

They then decided that, as they were simply terrible at fighting a real war, they would try their hand at murdering civilians. It seems that they aren’t very good at that either, but at least their governments can’t be attacked and forced to surrender as they claim that they “aren’t responsible” for the acts of terror.

This idea of killing little children and old people for not being a “good little sociopathic Islamist” spreads to all the other defective nutjobs in the Mid-East.

After a bunch of terrorists kill thousands of our citizens we invade the the pest-hole that they were operating from. We capture some of this sewage running in the hills of Afghanistan, not in uniform, shooting civilians, shooting at our soldiers. They should have been shot out of hand, no trial. This is the treatment prescribed by International Law. But, being the nice guys that we are, we take them into custody and incarcerate them in Cuba.

They are not US citizens, they never have been US citizens and they have never entered the US. The Constitution does not apply to them, therefore they cannot have been deprived of any of the rights reserved for US citizens.

So what do you suggest? Maybe we should let them go after a sincere apology. Right.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:21 pm 36. Adam:

One thing I’m dismayed nobody ever talks about is that the GTMO (not “Gitmo”…there’s no “i” in “Guantanamo”) detainees DO receive multiple reviews of their detentions. When they’re captured, they receive an initial battlefield determination of the basis for detention (usually participation in hostilities against the U.S.). Once they’re sent to GTMO, they’ll have a “Combatant Status Review Tribunal,” where a panel of military officers reviews whether they meet the definition of enemy combatant. Finally, they have an annual “Administrative Review Board” which determines whether the detainee still poses a threat; if not, they’re recommended for release.

Of course, a lot of the detainees don’t want to go back to their home countries, and other countries–all too happy to criticize the U.S.–are completely unwilling to give the detainees a home. Hell, a lot of the detainees slated for release would prefer to be in GTMO, where they’ll get a roof and three meals.

Anyway, it’s not criminal-court level due process, it doesn’t NEED to be since the detainees are being held pursuant to the laws of war, not criminal law. I won’t reiterate the above points about unlawful combatants; al-Qaida has broken the rule of law and isn’t entitled to the level of process some people demand.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:25 pm 37. David O'Keeffe:

I have no doubt the ordinary men and women in the armed forces are doing a heroic job under the most difficult of circumstances. This applies whatever country of “the coalition” they come from, US, UK or whatever.

I see today the papers are full of reports of Bush having to pardon a slew of people fot torture in Guantanamo Bay (links too many to mention – just feed “george bush pardon torture guantanamo bay” to google).

Frankly I’d rather he didn’t issue these pardons. If he’s right, he doesn’t need to. These people were only obeying orders! (hmmm that sounds familiar!).

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:27 pm 38. Bart:

Sean, you’ll learn truth one day. I hope it doesn’t cost you too much, but I fear it will. Gitmo is not what you think, and neither is Obama. In a 2001 Chicago NPR interview he said our Constitution is ‘deeply flawed’. And our POTUS and VP do, certainly, know and honor our Constitution.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:33 pm 39. Word to the wise:

Sean and Travis: There is not one atom of truth to your postings, not one.

You are just regurgitating liberal moonbat talking points specifically designed for self-important, immature “useful idiots” like yourselves. You have been sold a bill of goods, and like the moonbats you are, you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. What tools you are. You cannot even get the “neocon” slander right. You are just thoughtlessly running other peoples words through your mouths, people that could not care less if you or your family lived or died. They are just laughing at you.

It is a complete lie that Bush “lowered America’s standing” in the “international community” (there is no such thing, BTW, as “the international community” other than an “international community of socialists”). We have heard this same nonsense out of the Left about every Republican President since Hoover. You are just too young to know that.

Only America’s enemies hated Bush, and those enemies include socialists and transnational elites everywhere, but particularly the Tranzi-Socialists in the EU. It is these folks that the Democrat elites just dote on. They actually think America is actually inferior to Europe (Oh, and they envy them their almost aristocratic power, but the Dems are working on that one). The common European — at least the adults — were thankful that, yet again, America was taking on a task that their governments were too cowardly to undertake. It is only the EU elites that are in love with the Muslims. Regular people in the EU feel betrayed by the pandering to Islam by their elites and would gladly see all Muslims cleared out of Europe (this may happen yet if things get bad enough, BTW).

Obama will actually lower America’s standing, and not just among our enemies.
It is shameful that we have elected this buffoon. It embarrasses us before the world. It is a sign of a weak and confused people.
He will cause world-wide economic mayhem and he will force America to go back on its word, shirk its responsibilities and commitments and otherwise act irresponsibly. It will be worse than Carter, and he damaged America’s reputation to the point that we are still dealing with it 30 years later. The Clintons did not help us much either. Why do you think people like Bin Laden and 5th rate Nations like N. Korea and Iran think that they can push us around?

The EU is laughing at us. They would never elect a clown like Obama.
The Asians? They are applauded. All these people talk this PC multicult nonsense, but they are racists and elitists to the core. They would never put a clownish incompetent like Obama in power. The closest they have come to this it Tony Blair, and that is hardly even close to this hobo.

“Friend” and foe alike take his election as a sign of decadence and weakness, that is why they welcome it. (BTW, the Europeans — at least their elities — are not really our friends at all, not really. They hate us as a matter of principle and would love to see us humiliated. This principle in centuries old.)

Liberals, Socialists and Democrats never tell the truth. They always lie.

I am sure that both of you are quite young. You are in for a real education. It may cost you a good future. It may cost you your life.

I would wager that this last election was the first election that either of you were every really involved in. Note: the Democrats won an election, they were not canonized.
Soon the pendulum will swing back the other way, hopefully in two years.
That is America. Stop imagining that the Left’s propaganda machine speaks for the American public or “international opinion” (as if there were such a thing) or that that machine ever tells the truth. It does none of this.

You are going to have to learn that in the new order the Democrats have planned, you folks are just serfs, not citizens.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:40 pm 40. Sean:

Sarah,

People like you and your attitude of

“Also, you either ARE the biggest bully in the schoolyard or you give your lunch money to him – considering the alternative I could really care less what the rest of the world thinks of America, jealousy tends to get all kinds of people’s panties in a twist.”

is the exact reason why people do and will hate this country and gives rise to thousands of more Bin Ladens. People hate us and want to attack us BECAUSE we Bully them, and you seem to have justify that policy. A dedicated questioner of our government? The opinions you’ve stated on this page, hardly make it seem so, since you seem to agree with most of what has gone on on this country. And an overthrow? Who’s talking about an overthrow. I’m talking about people actually waking up and not drinking the kool-aid that those in power feed us.

And to your point of what Gaza has to do with this article, it was to bring light to people like you the effect that our foreign policies have on the rest of the world and in turn their policies and attitudes towards us.

To Peter,

I read this entire garbage article again, and it’s still garbage.

“Gabe WENT to Gitmo. He reported on what he saw WITH HIS OWN EYES.”

Wow, the author went to Gitmo and saw it and he didn’t see anything wrong. You don’t say. Did he get to see any of the classified areas? Did he get to talk to any detainees? No, and you know why because it’s pretty easy to convey the image you want when you know someone is coming to check you out and you control what they see, hear and who they talk to.

Using your and Gabe’s logic, if someone runs an illegal business out of their house and knows a journalist or law enforcement is coming to check this out and report on it, they’re just going to continue their illegal business correct. Typical right-wing logic. Oh and how about the fact that Gabe went there 7 years after Gitmo was created and not to mention most of the outcry against Gitmo and its practices started many years ago. If US officials hadn’t cleaned it up by now, then they deserve to be fired more for their stupidity than the crimes they committed there.

If you want to tell that Gitmo isn’t a convinient way to circumvent the constitution, than as a supposed “journalist”, present me with facts that prove to that point instead of some sob story trying to make feel guilty for questioning our policies. I’m not really surprised, since this is the standard Republican/Right Wing defense mechanism anytime someone questions US foreign policy or presents logical points. “Oh silly Liberal, you don’t support the troops”, “you’re not patriotic”, blah blah blah.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:42 pm 41. Word to the wise:

applauded=appalled.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:45 pm 42. jane:

I thought the Constitution applied to US citizens not terrorists.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:53 pm 43. Winston:

The US military is the best armed forces of the world. thanks for your service

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:53 pm 44. Sean:

Word to the Wise:

I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you. You’re the one who seems like some crazy right-wing loony, basically implying that the whole world hates us.

“It is a complete lie that Bush “lowered America’s standing” in the “international community” (there is no such thing, BTW, as “the international community” other than an “international community of socialists”).”

I heard a lot laughable ignorant, stupid comments in my life, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard or read anything as ignorant as that line. Have you left this country or seen images of other countries? Do you live under a rock in Alaska?

“Obama will actually lower America’s standing, and not just among our enemies.”

Hmm, another excellent observation there.

“The EU is laughing at us. They would never elect a clown like Obama.”

Surprising, since I remember Obama had a crowd of 200,000 turnout in Berlin for his speech, and GW could only muster 400,000 (Americans at that) for HIS INAUGURATION.

I thought Hannity, Rush, Billo were ignorant, but you sir have nothing on them.

If you aren’t young, I feel even more sorry for you, because your life has been one self-fulfilling lie. If what you posted puts you to bed at night, more power to you.

I’ll actually enjoy the next 8 years and hopefully longer when the US isn’t considered the shitter of the world.

Jan 15, 2009 - 1:54 pm 45. Marian Kechlibar:

Sean: “People hate us and want to attack us BECAUSE we Bully them”

Hmm, too simple to be true.

In fact, quite a lot of people hate you just because you are rich and self-conscious and infidels.

You are infidels to Muslims, because you are not Muslims.

You are infidels to the red ones, because you are not commies.

For older European nations, you are a painful image of their own gone glory and power (France, Germany…).

Truth is always far more complicated than simple narratives.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:00 pm 46. Marc Malone:

A legal point: The Geneva Convention doesn’t just apply to those in uniform. The partisans in WWII were considered combatants, not spies. That decision was codified as a legal precedent after the war. Citizens should be allowed to take up arms for their countries, regardless of whether or not they can obtain a uniform. It was determined that they cannot be shot out of hand as spies, as long as they are engaging in direct combat, but rather, they must be taken prisoner. Those engaging in more traditional acts of spying and sabotage CAN be shot out of hand. Paradoxically, a soldier who sheds his uniform CAN be shot as a spy. If you have a uniform for combat, you must wear it in a warzone.

Disclaimer: I’m no lawyer. My info is from historical reading. It may be flawed, incomplete, or out-of-date.

Next thing: It is prisoner of war status, not a criminal issue. No charges need be preferred. The incarceration lasts until the war is over, period. At the end of the war, they must be released. Sometimes during a war, they can be exchanged… or even parolled, as happened during our Civil War. Further, they can be tried for war crimes. Thus, the common confusion that they are all being held for trial. They’re not. They are being held as POW’s. Some are being investigated as possible terrorists.

(As an aside, we may be obligated by int’l treaty to not return some of these guys to their home countries where they would be executed, but POW’s are covered by other treaties and can be released to their home countries at any time the capturing nation chooses. We returned many soldiers to the USSR after the war. These were captured by the Germans and recruited into Vlasov’s Army of Disaffected Russians. They fought against us, but we did not return them to Germany, but to the USSR. I’m sure they were as warmly received as some of the terrorists would be. There IS precedent. It’s a way out. A warm-and-fuzzy-feeling way out.) ;D

It is true, however, that some are incarcerated there under the Patriot Act. They are suspected terrorists taken out of our country. In effect, Habeus Corpus has been partially suspended. If you seem to have ties to some terrorist organization or terror sponsoring nation, you can be taken to Gtmo for interrogation sans lawyer. This is a legal practice. It violates our Constitution, but it is certainly no crime, as all three branches of government have signed off on it. The SCOTUS endeavors to ensure that such things aren’t taken too far, so entertains motions regarding this.

The fact is, there is no hint of any war crimes, or any other crimes for that matter, being perpetrated at Gtmo. The flap is over Habeus Corpus, and whether or not the methods used for interrogation are quantifiable as torture or not. They are not. Sleep deprivation is harsher than waterboarding, as are extremes of heat, cold, light, and sound… and all take longer.

Had Abu Gharaib never happened, there would not be this flap, as the Press would not be able to sensationalize the proceedings at Gtmo. They emotionalize it, because they cannot win the rational argument. The emotional/sensational stuff sells papers or produce ratings. It also defames our country, but the LeftStream Media doesn’t care.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:01 pm 47. David:

You do not contradict Sen. Leahy’s statement at any time. Abu Ghraib was most certainly a national disgrace and an international embarrassment, I hope there’s no question in your mind about that. As for Guantanamo, not once did Mr. Leahy suggest that the troops had done anything wrong. He stated that it was a “legal black hole” — which it most certainly is. Regardless of what you believe about Gitmo, it is certainly demonstrably true that the people being held there were not detained under any existing legal framework.

Blaming the troops for our leaders’ mistakes is sick. George W. Bush and his civilian government are the ones responsible for the military’s actions, not the military. No one, to my knowledge, has faulted the military in any major way for any problem that occurred during the Bush presidency — indeed, the general consensus is that the military has performed admirably under difficult conditions. The fault was in the civilian deserters and draft-dodgers like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and so forth that used the military like their own personal plaything.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:05 pm 48. DonJoe:

Dear Pete;

Islam is a political system, not a “religion”, steeped in brutality. There are NO moderates in Islam PERIOD. The “so called moderates” create a stealth jihad, using or Constitution and wealth against us, while funding the “fundamentalist.” There are only 3 choices in Islam;

1) Convert
2) Submit (become a slave)(Dhimmi)
3) Die (beheading is the death of choice)
PERIOD!

You need to exit you cyber/ivory tower and check out the “Real” world before making such naive judgments.

Where were you on 9/11/2001?

Have you already forgotten?

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:05 pm 49. Jeff:

For an in-depth review check out the following.

CRS Report for Congress
Terrorism and the Law of War: Trying Terrorists
as War Criminals before Military Commissions
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31191.pdf

President Bush acted well within his authority and established precedent, both internationally and within the US.

It does not appear that the US was under any obligation to extend protections reserved for lawful enemy combatants to members of AQ. The fact that President Bush did is to his benefit, despite the claims of his detractors.

As for coercive (physical or mental) interrogation techniques…the interviewer must be absolutely certain that the subject has the required information. The risk, from an information standpoint, is that if the subject doesn’t know the information, he may simply make up what he thinks the interviewer wants to hear. This would cloud the overall information picture.

As for the moral judgments, the risk to our nation’s reputation vs. the lives of our citizens…it seems clear that the President valued our safety over the popular opinion of the international community.

Most of us will probably never know fully how many US lives were hanging in the balance.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:08 pm 50. Steve P.:

How ridiculous! Don’t you conservatives understand that what you are arguing is that because terrorists broke the law, they are no longer subject to it?

What a stupid argument! The whole point of having a legal system in place is so that we can force people to answer to it when they operate outside of the legal system. If we decide not to use our American legal system to bring justice in all situations that apply to American lives, then what the &*$#% is the point in having one in the first place?????

What sets us apart from rogue states is that we are a nation of laws, not of men. By saying that we will not hold our enemies accountable to our laws because they do not respect them? That is an argument for morons and fascists who do not have faith in the American legal system to bring justice.

What we should have done was immediately bring the terrorists up on charges. Try them in American courts. If we find them guilty, awesome, American justice wins! If they get off, then damn, that sucks, but at least we get to show the world that when we says that we are a nation of laws, we are not just bull$#1##1ng!

Gtmo has been nothing but an international disaster for this nation’s credibility. It has created more terrorists. It has rallied the world against us, even the parts that we are normally friendly with. And for what?

Come on, people. We don’t always have to become barbarians when faced with barbarians. We don’t win by treating our enemies like animal. We win the long term battle by being better than them. We win the long term battle by showing them that our system works better.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:10 pm 51. ninjadan:

@Sean:

So then what do you propose we do? Do we stop fighting? Do we give rights to those who, by your all-hallowed Geneva Convention’s own laws, have no rights?

Do we reward a criminal for his behavior?

For thousands of years before the United States existed, punishments were far crueler than anything we’ve ever done. The very people you defend recognize no rights even among their own. I want to know why we should extend “rights” to those who’s own barbaric actions you would not tolerate here.

If detain, and even if we waterboard these terrorists, how can you excuse all of their actions (beheading, kidnapping, rape, dehumanizing women, killing children, hiding among civilians and hospitals, etc.) and call what the U.S. does, wrong?

Why is what we do wrong and what these radical Islamists do, not?

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:23 pm 52. Anton:

Steve P,
You seem to have missed the point about them being “outside the law”. This is a very specific legal status and is the basis for the term “outlaw”. This means that such a person is literally outside the law, they have no standing at all, they can be killed at will and have no legal recourse.

This is a status that they chose for themselves. It wasn’t inflicted upon them, they looked at the situation and deliberately chose the path of action that led them to that state.

Read (I mean actually read) the Geneva Conventions, they are short and to the point. Any person fighting as a combatant while not in uniform and fighting for a recognized power is an illegal combatant and thus has no rights.

The US legal system does not have any mechanism for charging these persons. There is no Federal or State law that I know of that addresses ilegal acts committed by illegal combatants on the soil of another country. Maybe you could poke through the law books and find a charge, heck if we can’t charge these guys maybe you would like to give them a room at your house while they “rehab” into productive persons.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:34 pm 53. Peter the Bubblehead:

47. DonJoe wrote:
Where were you on 9/11/2001?

Peter responds: I was serving the military of the United States of America, defending my nation.

One of my closest friends from high school was a firefighter being killed at the WTC.

Don’t DARE question me as naive. I did (and continue to do) my part.

Where were you?

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:41 pm 54. Peter the Bubblehead:

49. Steve P. wrote:
How ridiculous! Don’t you conservatives understand that what you are arguing is that because terrorists broke the law, they are no longer subject to it?

Peter responds: You are the one being ridiculous. These terrorists did not ‘break a law.’ They committed acts of terrorism and then attempt to hide by appearing as civilians among civilians. They don’t even deserve the treatment they have received. What they do deserve is what they want to do to every living American, including you, Steve P.

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:44 pm 55. Camp Siracusa:

Aloha Gabe:

Thank you for your very clear and honest appraisal of the Guantanamo situation. I wonder if those who complain so vigorously have any idea what kind of people these prisoners are. The recent news that several who have been freed are already on the front lines of terrorism should be a loud message to the new administration to be sure they fully understand the problem before making a decision on what to do with these terrorists.

We missed you at the Camp the past Holiday

Aloha, Pete

Jan 15, 2009 - 2:54 pm 56. Anton:

Mark Malone, they were fighting on their own soil against an enemy that had invaded their country and there was an existing Government in Exile that advocated that. A Saudi or Morrocan in the ‘Stan does no get this as coverage.

My understanding is that the Nazis shot the Maquis as soon as they were taken, they even shot Tito’s troops when they were captured in uniform. The Maquis tried to make sure that they wore the appropriate markings indicated by the Conventions by wearing specific clothing and an armband to show that they were combatants. They went out of their way to avoid confusing themselves with the general population when taking action against the enemy. They also stopped fighting when the enemy left their homeland.

AQ can’t have a homeland, all of the land on the planet is spoken for and no one is taking credit for them. They don’t have a government (in exile or otherwise). They act almost exclusively against the population, or hide directly behind them when a fight does start.

It does a great disservice to the people that fought the Nazis to equate AQ with them.

BTW the only reason that we sent to poor Russians to their death after the war was that Truman was trying to placate Stalin. He was a boob.

Jan 15, 2009 - 3:11 pm 57. Gabe:

The point of the article was to challenge the underlying prejudices that cause assumptions about issues like Guantanamo Bay. One such assumption was already brought up in the comments to this article, by Sean: “it’s pretty easy to convey the image you want when you know someone is coming to check you out and you control what they see, hear and who they talk to…Using your and Gabe’s logic, if someone runs an illegal business out of their house and knows a journalist or law enforcement is coming to check this out and report on it, they’re just going to continue their illegal business correct. Typical right-wing logic.”

One obvious problem with your point is that if we were to accept it, we could never believe anything that comes from our government, our military, our intelligence or law enforcement personnel, etc. Instead, we’d depend entirely on the media, acting totally independently of the above institutions. Who wins in that comparison? Does that sound at all feasible? Could there be a way of calming some of our fears about the honesty of our military?

Well, there is in fact good reason to challenge your assumption that the military lies to the public and only shows what it thinks will best serve its interests. That’s exactly what I’m presenting in this article. It appears that you are likely too full of anger and hatred to read something that might challenge your views. I understand. It takes a while to get over the fact that you’re not the center of the universe, not the smartest person around, and not all that well informed.

The point is that your assumptions dismiss and slander our servicemen and women, the vast majority of whom have admirably overcome challenges that the average American college professor couldn’t conceive of. They’ve done it with class and discipline well beyond their years. They have a sophisticated understanding of their mission, how it fits into our broader war on terror, and why it is so important. I give examples from my experience in Iraq to show how committed we are to upholding high standards and values. We don’t just pay them lip service and lie to the media, we put our lives on the line and some die for it. They are actively participating (voluntarily) to try to make the world a better place, in this case by keeping some of the world’s worst people behind bars. Perhaps if you’re not too angry at them for it, you could try to acknowledge and appreciate that. Then, once we’ve got the basics down, I can start explaining the harder stuff.

Jan 15, 2009 - 3:12 pm 58. Peter the Bubblehead:

Gabe, I appreciate and thank you for both your service to our nation and for this enlightening article.
~Peter
Proud OIF Vet

Jan 15, 2009 - 3:27 pm 59. CB Baxter:

Sean, you’re a pretty good writer, but an idiot when it comes to facts. You accuse the author of parroting the commanders at Gitmo, while all I see in your post is parroting of the uninformed drivel that has been spewed by the radical left for the last seven years. The commanders at Gitmo have been there; the crazies making the wild accusations have not.

The Geneva Convention has no genuine application to these prisoners. If it did, then that would clarify that that they MUST be held without charges. Levying criminal charges or otherwise subjecting prisoners of war to the courts system of the capturing nation is actually what the Conventions most clearly prohibit.

Never before in the history of warfare has it been suggested that prisoners captured on foreign soil should ever have a right of access to the courts of the nation they fought against. Never. The notion is patently absurd. The very fact that anyone wants these prisoners to have such access is stark testimony to the superiority of the American system, but it’s still utterly absurd.

Jan 15, 2009 - 4:06 pm 60. Word to the wise:

Sean: You really are missing the point. No responsible adult cares what you think. Period. They have been through your “phase” when they were in their teens. They speak to you out of charity, not for your input. Why would they do otherwise?
You are a foolish little boy, with no accomplishments whatsoever and one that has not the slightest idea how the real world works. (Gee, sort of like your master, eh?)
That dream world, that liberal, MSM bubble which you live in is designed to keep you ignorant and poor. It is purposefully made for the immature and frivolous youth. Wise up and get over it while you can still do something about your situation.

If you are lucky, soon you will actually have to go about your life and start being responsible. You know, wife and kids, mortgage and a real job, that sort of thing.
When that happens you will actually have to be responsible for your actions to a family and a real community, not the gang down at the local bar. Then things will look much different. Watching the Dems trash your opportunities and drain your pocketbook will not be pleasant, particularly when you are looking square in your family’s faces (and their futures).
Something as idiotic as the myth “international opinion” will be placed in the proper perspective. The Democrats are lying to you: They are not going to take care of you; you are on your own. They are going to take money and opportunities from you. They have contempt for you, as any conman has for his mark. To them you are a serf.

You will find that, at best, real people ignore idiots, but most of the time they rather take ruthless advantage of them. They never respect them.

You posts have literally no truths or facts in them at all, nor are they even rational. Commenters here have pointed this out over and over and your response has been one of immature invective and effeminate pouting. Because of this none worth talking to cares what you think. It is comic. You literally do not know what you are saying, and obviously so, and yet you think that you are saying something meaningful. It is just a collection of vapid talking points coming out of your mouth. Garbage in garbage out. You are been taken advantage of, and you cannot even imagine that this is possible.

It is risible, your ignorance of the adult world. What a tool. What self-important buffoonery. How are you ever going to hold down a decent, professional job? Who will hire you? Do you think successful, productive businesses are run by left wing moonbats like you?
You are never going to be in the Democrat’s gravy train, that is for the elites. You are not in the democrats AA gravy train either — you are a white male.
The way you are going, you obviously will never make management in whatever benighted company it is that you work for now, and creating your own business is obviously out of the the question. A lifetime in some sh!*ty little staff job? You should think about that. Broke, liberal, stupid and a wage slave is hardly a way to go through life. How are you ever going to advance?

BTW, I doubt Obama makes it through one term. He certainly will not make it through eight years. He will crumble at the first crisis, and he is so deeply corrupt that sooner or later his own party will force him out. Definitely a one-termer, and that is if he is lucky. Keep your eyes on the Clintons.

I will wager that the country turns on him by Sept. of this year.

Given how out of control this Congress is shaping up to be, the GOP will most likely take the Hill back in 2010. This bum is even worse then Clinton, and the country saw through him in a year.

You really do not know much about American politics. Presently you will learn.

Go polish your Scwhinn. Put some pink ribbons on it. Think about it.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:07 pm 61. Thomas:

Sean
As an European at birth I am amused at the typical Marxist-Leninist impertinent arrogance with which you distribute your radical Leftist elucidation like a mini Khrushchev who banged on the table while barefoot.

Apart from radical demagoguery reminiscent of Cohn Bendit and the Red Brigade, you have nothing intelligent to say; you mindset is formed by the A.N.S.W.E.R. people and given your adept grip on English language you try to censure others and pontificate to Americans who are unaccustomed to your gushing rant. They may look at you with aw like chicken mesmerized by a snake’s eye.

Obama is a clown, he is a figurehead of concealed group of shadowy people: to bring together 1 million Radical Bolshevik in Western Europe is not a big deal: try to do the same in EASTERN Europe where your comrades were kicked out and they are unwelcome even in the Great Repository of all things Marxist, that is, the New Soviet Russia.

I am Eastern European thus we are immune to your Socialist crap: you will have more luck with your America bashing, Jew hating creed with the Islamofascist and Commie crowd who love to gather in San Francisco, see them at http://www.zombitime.com

Your bright intellect, cosmopolitan wisdom, towering sophistication will be the guiding light for many and we others, primitive mortals who cannot use properly the subjunctive mood within the English syntax shall remain here in our pajamas from Walmart along with JtP.

 

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:10 pm 62. Squirmn:

60. Thomas

Well said Thomas.

Jan 15, 2009 - 5:29 pm 63. Pat J:

19. ThinkingPerson:
——————
Sorry to offend you and anyone else. But some of these people (and as an American I use the term “people” loosely)deserve their day in court. They may not be technically covered by the Geneva Convention, and certainly not guaranteed Constitutional rights. But we should not sink to the level of our enemies by denying them due process.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:19 pm 64. Pat J:

20. ThinkingPerson:
——————
How dare you! Pearl was brutally murdered by evil scum. In no way would I have any sympathy for his killers. If I had my way I’d put a bullet in their heads.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:22 pm 65. mishu:

Wow, the author went to Gitmo and saw it and he didn’t see anything wrong. You don’t say. Did he get to see any of the classified areas? Did he get to talk to any detainees?

Did you?

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:26 pm 66. mishu:

Don’t you conservatives understand that what you are arguing is that because terrorists broke the law, they are no longer subject to it?

Wrong. They committed acts of war, not a crime.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:31 pm 67. Econ_Scott:

To Sean the windbag:

Like the sound of your own voice don’t chya.

As a member of a family that’s been on this continent for over 360 years just trying to make a living and raise our families, yes we are caught up in what happens here for good or ill. Maybe by luck we settled and farmed above the Mason Dixon line, and fought white capitalist European descendants holding slaves and their supporters from Petersburg seige to appomatox, have my uncle who raised my mother, is burried on the French/German border died while saving your pussy ass from Nazi boot on your throat before the atrocities they committed on civilians of the Dutch Belgians and the French. For two years before that he ministered mercy to legal combatants of Rommels Africa Corps helping build them livable quarters at Ft. McAllen Alabama, 357th Regiment Engineers, 90th Division.

And have Uncles that fought as legal combatants from Burma, to Okinawa to Korea and Vietnam.

And I offered my two sons to the Marine corps. along with two dozen friends sons who are serving.

IF you’re so caught up in the niceties of trials of illegal and “Legal combatants” … I dare you to meet me at the two soup kitchens we volunteer at in the Iron Triangle in Richmond and West Oakland, CA and Stockton CA. We’ll stay and work till after dark then walk out the 5 miles it takes to get to safety.

I’ve asked hundreds of Puss libs to do it … they’re all shrimp d_ck boot lickers like you.

I’d be sure to come out alive. I’m not so sure you would. I’d give you a 1 in 10 chance after dark.

The Bush Administration did the best anyone could with GITMO under the legal restrictions present.

My wife & children were on the observation deck of the World Trade Center 13 days before 9-11, I still have the tie they bought me in the gift shop. The Homicide bombers killed over 1,000 of my collegues, a few I knew very well. My brother in law was supposed to be in a meeting on the 87th floor at 9:30 of WTCII. The Homicide bombers were also noncombatants.

There are alot of people I’d stand in front of bullets to protect from the perps in GITMO. But for you I’d just step aside, you miserable Pussy.

Those left in GITMO want to kill you. If the Obama administration fumbles thru the process to let them loose, perhaps they will.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:35 pm 68. Marc L:

Well written. I wish articles like this got more attention. I don’t understand how so many people in this country can live with such ignorance about important matters. The argument that we are no better than our enemies for the way we are treating them is ludicrous. For some reason, people seem to like hearing the occasional negative incidents and assume them to be the norm, as if human error and flaws don’t exist. Unfortunately, good politicians know about this flaw in people’s logic and take advantage of it. The fact is, what we are facing is new, and therefor requires a new way of dealing with them. If a person wants to argue that there are better ways to deal with suspected terrorists, fine. But to apply previous rules to this situation would be a mistake. Unique circumstances require a different way of problem solving. When you have to make up the rules as you go along, mistakes are going to be made, and hopefully lessons will be learned.

Jan 15, 2009 - 6:39 pm 69. Peter the Bubblehead:

62. Pat J wrote:
But we should not sink to the level of our enemies by denying them due process.

Peter responds: Due process is for criminals. People who broke the law, like stealing or jaywalking.

These people are not criminals. They are terrorists. The have earned the moniker ‘Enemy Combatant.’ By internationally recognized law, they can be held for as long as the war they were captured participating in continues, and unless the Islamists suddenly lay down their arms and bombs and IEDs tomorrow and suddenly vow to be good little boys and girls, I don’t see that happening for a long, long time.

Hey, I have an idea! Why not give in to all the bleeding hearts. We won’t hold enemy combatants without criminal charges indefinitely… Let’s just shoot them when they are caught and save the grief!

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:22 pm 70. Peter the Bubblehead:

67. Marc L wrote:
I don’t understand how so many people in this country can live with such ignorance about important matters.

Peter tries to explain: Because articles like this disturb their ‘world view,’ where everything is the fault of the US and everyone would like us again if only we would try to understand them and cater to their whims.

I fear the only way any of them will understand is when the day comes that the terrorists have taken over and the ‘peace & ove’ crowd suddenly realize that the terrorists don;t like them any more than they like the rest of us.

Try and make a female liberal college student wearing a dozen ear piercings, a tight t-shirt and a miniskirt understand that the so-called citizens of the country she is protesting in favor of would be the first to beat her, rape her and then stone her to death just because she is a liberated, self possessed female. I know what it is like, I have tried, at several anti-war counter-protests. I just wish there were some way for these people to see the REAl world by having to live in it for a month before they start protesting against the US.

Jan 15, 2009 - 7:29 pm 71. John Moore:

Econ_Scott

Well said!

Jan 15, 2009 - 8:27 pm 72. Dawn:

I started reading the many comments that have been posted on this article today, and they all are basically the same: die liberal media scum or die prisoners in Gitmo. I don’t believe that either of those extreme viewpoints is addressing the real point of the article, which is just to be aware of the negative light that the media generally casts on the military. The stories that consistently hit the front pages on the newsstands throughout this experience in Iraq unfortunately highlight those few in the armed services who have misbehaved, and it so sad that we have allowed these few to represent the thousands who behave honorably. I don’t think we need to give up completely in our examination of the activities that are conducted in Gitmo, but we do need to change our viewpoint to a positive and trusting one in order show a slight bit of gratitude to those who help keep us safe.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:14 pm 73. fred:

The entire attack upon Gitmo and its success as a propaganda ploy, has been achieved by neo-Marxist swine who are in league with the Islamic terrorists.

Although most of the people on that bandwagon are not conscious socialists and most are the useful idiots, the entire thing was orchestrated not just to singe President Bush: it was to help our enemies gain some sort of victory and advantage.

The nation is in great danger, not just from the jihadis who will be brought to the mainland and put into the justice system.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:46 pm 74. Northstar:

I’ve only read part of these comments, however, one thing that seems to be mis-construed is the idea of the detainees having “broken” the law. They have not “broken” the law of the Geneva Convention, they have made the descion to put themselves to the judgement of the law by not being in uniforn. Once that decision was made, they must abide by that law, which says they have given up all rights defined by the Convention.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:47 pm 75. fred:

Rest assured, folks, the day of reckoning is coming for all of these Gramscian Communists who have had a fair amount of success in manipulating events and their interpretation. They will overplay their hands. Eventually, the kiddies and lassies who got fooled in the election will catch on. And if they don’t and the nation drifts more in a collectivist direction, if they go too far, well, the Marxists will be utterly shocked by the violence that will be visited upon them by an angry American people who have had enough of them. And if the Muslims hit us hard again and the ruling socialists do not respond as they should, watch things really blow. They will not escape the wrath that is to come.

Jan 15, 2009 - 9:54 pm 76. Northstar:

Another comment to those who feel we should give these rights to the detainees. If America would allow them the same rights as uniformed soldiers, it us that would be “breaking” the law. As the law now stands, we cannot give them those rights. If that is a problem for you, it’s not America you need to try to change, it’s the law, in this case, the Geneva Convention. Put your efforts there.

Jan 15, 2009 - 10:05 pm 77. WOTN:

Interestingly, the incoming Party of absolute power is now looking for excuses to keep the place open. Unfortunately, they are looking in the wrong places.

Some basics:
The terrorists detained at Gitmo have NO Constitutional rights (unless they are US citizens in which case they are chargeable with treason.)

The terrorists are enemy combatants, which means they are covered by the Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions do NOT give them a right to a trial.

Without uniforms, they are unlawful combatants, which means they are still combatants.

As terrorists, they are by definition, War Criminals, which means they MAY be charged and imprisoned for as long as the law allows, beyond the cessation of hostilities. There is NO requirement to do so.

http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2009/01/the-conundrum-of-success-guantanamo-bay-debate-rages.html

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:41 am 78. Steve P.:

Anton: “Steve P, You seem to have missed the point about them being “outside the law”. This is a very specific legal status and is the basis for the term “outlaw”. This means that such a person is literally outside the law, they have no standing at all, they can be killed at will and have no legal recourse.”

This is a status that they chose for themselves. It wasn’t inflicted upon them, they looked at the situation and deliberately chose the path of action that led them to that state.

Read (I mean actually read) the Geneva Conventions, they are short and to the point. Any person fighting as a combatant while not in uniform and fighting for a recognized power is an illegal combatant and thus has no rights.

The US legal system does not have any mechanism for charging these persons. There is no Federal or State law that I know of that addresses ilegal acts committed by illegal combatants on the soil of another country. Maybe you could poke through the law books and find a charge, heck if we can’t charge these guys maybe you would like to give them a room at your house while they “rehab” into productive persons.”

Anton, nobody is outside the law. That’s the whole point of there being law. Take your semantic BS elsewhere. And don’t hide behind the Geneva Conventions. We’ve broken them before, and we’ll break them again. And don’t say that we’re just helpless to bring these guys up on charges, that’s just wussy. If American lawyers are clever enough to make waterboarding legal, which also is in direct violations of the Geneva Conventions, then I’m damn sure that they’re clever enough to bring war crimes charges against terrorists that will stick.

Jan 16, 2009 - 6:55 am 79. luagha:

The point is that these people fall under the jurisdiction of war. They are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. The reason we dare not bring them into our own country into a Prisoner Of War camp is because our boneheaded juidicial system has decided that that would make them ‘resident aliens’ and grant them rights under our constitution. So we must keep them off our soil.

Military commissions of the kinds used in WW1, WW2, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War are obviously what to do, and they are in fact being done.

All of the current inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay have had their status reviewed in multiple hearings, with a chance for the evidence to be heard and rebutted. It is through these hearings that we have decided which of the prisoners could be repatriated to their countries of origin, and which we should keep. But you’ve really only heard of that through the statistics on the ones we recapture. (If we recapture them, it means we must have given them a military commission and let them go, only for them to screw up again, right?)

A military commission is not an american courtroom. It’s not even Judge Judy. But then, it doesn’t have to be.

(Hey, I have an idea for a nifty reality TV show…)

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:42 am 80. Anton:

OK Steve P, you are apparently a legal whiz, which laws will allow us to charge them? Please cite them.

You can’t conjure stuff up in a courtroom, this isn’t Law & Order where you can point at somebody and say “him bad” and get a conviction. You need to have a charge. Plus, US law does no have jurisdiction outside the US therefore they cannot be charged under US law.

You have time to fire back but can’t Google something up?

The Geneva Conventions (the only law that applies) says they can be killed, do you agree with that action? It also says they have no rights, thus they can be tortured in any way you see fit. If this action is/is not legal under our laws does grant them a right, it simply allows/disallows an action on our part.

If we choose to hold them as “enemy combatants”, a privilge they most certainly do not deserve, then they can be held in custody until the termination of hostilities.

Why don’t you make the call, are they Enemy Combatants or not?

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:51 am 81. ajacksonian:

I support the Abraham Lincoln solution, but then he was only the Great Emancipator and Saviour of the Union… you know, highly civilized? Farsighted? That guy with the beard and stovepipe hat, tall and gangly… wish his party would remember him, too, but that is too much to ask of modern folks, apparently, who want the icon not the man. And his solution, strangely, doesn’t go against the GC or Hague Conventions as the US has signed on to them, not the parts we haven’t signed on to because of President Lincoln and how America has always understood the Laws of War and Peace.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:53 am 82. Jack:

Maybe this will sound a little blood-thirsty, but could some one explain to me again why we aren’t just killing these vile jihadi f***s?

Is it because we want to show them how good and moral we are? Maybe I missed something, but from my POV, that doesn’t seem to be working out.

Some times you really do have to do bad things for good things to happen.

And the sad fact is that once a nuke goes off in the US (or a chemical/biological weapon) we will sit back in wonder at how unbelievably stupid we were to even have the discussion about how we treat the Islamo-fascists.

Islam is a crime against all humanity. It is especially a crime against Muslim women. All of the pudits know it too, they just don’t want to say it, cause then they’ll be accused of being “racist”.

You don’t keep rabid dogs in cages. You kill them just as fast as you can.

Jan 16, 2009 - 7:59 am 83. KDXMAN:

Good article, but I would have liked a little more details and pics. The detainees are in seem to be treated better, and receive better care than a lot of Americans do. Some are afraid to be sent home for fear of being killed while others say they will return to killing Americans if they do mange to go back. I think that we will never convince some people that it is an ideology we are fighting and not terrorism. Terrorism as are rifles and grenades are just tools. The real threat is Islam. Until democratic countries are ready to engage in total warfare to defeat Islamism as it defeated Nazism and Shintoism in the past, we are doomed.

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:30 am 84. cottus:

I do waste a lot of time reading these comments, rather. More and more the polarization becomes hardened. Every once and a while somebody comments that it’s just like the civil war. America divided right down the middle. Some guy in Russia predicts the breakup of America soon. Well, it certainly resonates with me.

Oh! the irony! The new Lincoln, Barack Hussein Obama ordering out federal troops to preserve the Union. Suits me. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again…”

Jan 16, 2009 - 8:39 am 85. pep:

Why are the ones who spout Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention! the last ones who have read it?

As with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, they like to scream about it but have never read it, because unfortunately if they did their hysteria wouldn’t exist.

The truth?? Walk away….nothing to see here, nothing to see here.

A la Carte Amendments for today liberals.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:08 am 86. Dotar Sojat:

Sean – face it, you’re not a player in the game. You’re on the outside looking in, and no matter who is in office you’ll always be on the outside loking in, and you’ll always hate somebody for it.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:22 am 87. thenakedemperor:

A couple of questions:

Could anyone please give me where I could find a brief history of the nation of Palestine? When was it founded, who were it’s leaders, and in exactly what action did the Israeli’s occupy that sovereign nation? Please provide cites.

Our democracy has been mentioned. Please cite exactly where in our founding documents (Declaration, Constitution, Federalist Papers) it says that the USA is a democracy? A basic eighth grade civics class teaches that the USA is a Republic.

Please cite where in the Constitution of the United States are the laws governing the behavior of Non-Americans in Non-American lands.

Please provide detailed causality for how Bush is responsible for the WTC attack in ‘93, the Cole attack, the Embassy bombings, Bali, the Olympics in ‘72, and the other rampant examples of Islamic terror dating back in the history of the US to the Tripolitan war of the late 18th Century. (US Marine Hymn – “to the shores of Tripoli”)

I thank you in advance for filling in these gaps in my non Ivy League educaction, and helping a poor red-neck Doctor rise in the eyes of my elitist associates.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:29 am 88. Peter the Bubblehead:

In response to thenakedemperor:

There is not and has never been a nation called Palestine.

Here is a brief rundown on the history of the region. Many thanks to cmsent, who first postred this on another thread:

The “myth” of a Palestinian people or indigenous Palestine:

In an article entitled, “The Lesson of Palestine,” printed in the Middle East Journal, October 1949, Arab activist, Musa Alami, wrote, “how can people struggle for their nation, when most of them do not know the meaning of the word? … The people are in great need of a “myth” of imagination. The myth of nationality would create “identity” and “self-respect.”

The Arab world has certainly demonstrated great skill in the “myth” of imagination. They have done such a good job that they have convinced much of the world that their “myths” are facts. Perhaps their biggest myth is the myth of Palestine. The Arab world would have us believe that the Palestinians have been in “Palestine” from “time immemorial” but were displaced by the Jews when Israel became a state in 1948. But what are the facts?

While we are not certain of the exact dates, Joshua conquered the Land God promised the Jews in the 13th century BCE. King David established Jerusalem as the capital of Israel around 1000 BCE. King Solomon built the Jewish Temple about 960 BCE. This was almost 1000 years before the beginning of Christianity and 1600 years before the rise of Islam. As Prime Minister Barak has noted, “When Jesus came to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts, he didn’t come to a church or a mosque, he came to the Temple.” It is not the Church Mount or the Mosque Mount that is fought over, it is the Temple Mount. It was the Temple Mount centuries before Christianity tried to make it the Church Mount and Islam tried to make it the Mosque Mount.

However, not to be confused with facts, in a personal audience I had several years ago with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was appointed by Arafat, he boldly declared that the Arabs had been living in the Land for 10,000 years. Based on conservative Bible chronology, that means the Arabs have been living in the Land before the Almighty created Adam and Eve.

How did Israel become Palestine and who are the Palestinians? The second Jewish war with the Romans took place in 132-135 CE. Led by Rabbi Akiva and Simon bar Kochba, the Jewish uprising was crushed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian who sought to de-Judaize Jerusalem and make it a pagan city. Hadrian renamed Jerusalem “Aelia Capitolina” in honor of Jupiter. He changed the name of Judea and gave it the name of the Jews ancient enemy, the Philistines. He called it — Palestine.

Over time, Palestine was ruled by the Roman Byzantines (312-637) [Persian interrupt 614-629], Omayyad Arabs (638-750), Islamic Abbassid’s (750-1099), Crusaders (1099-1291) [Saladin the Kurd interrupt 1187-93], Mamluks (1291-1516), Ottoman Turks (1517-1917), and the British Mandate (1917-1948). None of these rulers established a sovereign state in the Land and Jerusalem was never the capital of any empire since the time of King David. Palestine was a forgotten desolate, wasteland, but historical records show there was always a Jewish presence in the Land.

The revival of modern Jewish life in the Land began in the 1880’s with the arrival of Russian refugees from the Russian pogroms. A second wave of immigration, also from Russia, was in 1905. This was followed by later immigrations resulting in a growing Jewish population in the Land. When the Jews came to the Land, they found a malaria infested swamp in the north and an uninhabitable desert in the south. It was as if the God of the Bible had kept the Land hidden away in obscurity until the rightful owners — the Jews returned to claim it.

The Jewish pioneers did not steal the Land from the Arabs. They purchased the Land at highly inflated prices from absentee landlords living outside the Land. As the Jews worked the Land, it began to prosper. While there were Jews and Arabs living in the Land, there were many poor migrant Arab farm workers in the surrounding Arab countries who needed work. When they heard that the Land was prospering under the hand of the Jews, they migrated to Palestine to get work from the Jews. Furthermore, the British allowed many thousands of Arabs into Palestine illegally while barring the Jews from entering the Land. For the most part, the Arab Palestinians are these peasant farm workers and illegal aliens.

“Palestinians” have never been a distinct people, they have never had a sovereign land called Palestine, Jerusalem has never been their capital, there is no Palestinian language or culture, and there is no Palestinian people. It is a myth created after the Jews liberated Jerusalem in 1967.

Before the birth of the State of Israel, Arab leaders themselves denied the existence of an Arab country called Palestine. In 1937, Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi said, “There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. ‘Palestine” is alien to us; it is the Zionists who introduced it.” In 1946, a distinguished Princeton professor and Arab historian said, “There is no such thing as Palestine in Arab history, absolutely not.”

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:43 am 89. Peter the Bubblehead:

Also, my apologies for taking this thread somewhat off-topic while responding to thenakedemperor.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:45 am 90. KLH:

Wow

After years of listening to demands for impeaching Bush, Cheney, ect we suddenly get enlightenment as to the truth . . . . . . just a few days before Obama moves into the White House.

How convenient

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:50 am 91. David W. Lincoln:

Sean, are you able to refrain from insults when countering the points of those who arrive at different conclusions?

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:55 am 92. Frank:

25. Sean:
“What a garbage piece of writing. I don’t see any value in this article or ANY EVIDENCE presented in it whatsoever that tells of the “Good” Gitmo. All that is presented is what US at officials at Gitmo tell the author, and oh what a surprise, they say it’s a great place.”

What evidence has been presented that proves there have been war crimes or abuse there?

“I can’t believe all the right-wing, Neo-con idiots on here. Forget the Geneva convention, we have something called a Constitution. Gitmo was specifically created to get around the Constitution. I for one, am sick of the Fear propaganda employed by the Bush Administration since 9/11 to wipe their asses with the Constitution and strip us of our Constitutional liberties. Our soldiers are fighting for our constitutional liberties and freedom??? Really? That’s what they’re doing? Funny, considering since the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we have less Constitutional freedoms and civil liberties in this Country.”

You really don’t know what the hell right wing is if you think “Neocons” are right wing. That’s why I typically can’t even abide by you moonbat types… the ones who are always screaming “neocon” I mean… because if I asked you you probably couldn’t even define “right wing” or “left wing”. What is it that makes the “Neocons” right wing?

As for less freedoms… what freedoms did you lose, exactly, since 9/11?

“For those of you who don’t think Gitmo and our entire handling of the War on Terror has been one big embarrassing blunder after another, you obviously must be Nationalists or Facists who have never left this country in the last 7 or so years. It’s not just vast portions of the Arab world that hate us, but vast portions of the entire world.”

Actually, much of (non-Muslim) Africa LOVES America, because George W Bush has done more to help Africa in food, medicine, infrastructure and AID money than any other U.S administration in History. Bushs approval ratings are higher in much of Africa than they are at home. As for the rest of the world, why should Americans care what the Socialist Europeans, Islamic Jihadists and Totalitarian China and Russia think?

“Also, many national security experts, journalists, politicians, etc. from both sides of the political spectrum have shown how our War on terror has created more enemies for our country, than it has gotten rid. If our actions aren’t enough, every US made and supplied weapon that Israel uses against Gaza only increases this problem exponentially.”

The war on terror was a mistake, yes, because terror is merely a tactic. Having a war on terror is analogous to Roosevelt declaring a “war on aviation” after the Pear Harbor attacks.

“Also, I suggest many of you brush up on the history of the disputed land of Gaza. Israel, is the one that is occupying land that is not there. I don’t condone Hamas’ actions or cowardliness one bit, but for the Palestinian people as whole, you tell me how you would feel and react if another Country illegally occupied the US with no end in sight? Would you be angry? Would you fight back? Would our allies get pissed at the occupier? Would they retaliate on our behalf? So don’t be surprised then when Palestine’s Arab allies hate Israel, and in turn it’s biggest supplier of aid and arms, the US.”

You clearly don’t know the history of the land if you think the Jews are “occupying” palestinian land. After WW2, what is known as modern day Israel, Gaza, West Bank and Jordan were called the “British Mandate of Palestine”. In 1922, Winston Churchill, despite promising to make it a homeland for the Jews for years, took 80% of the Mandate and turned it into “Transjordan”, which would later become Jordan, a purely Arab kingdom. The Remaining 20% was to be divided between the Jews and the Arabs, each getting approx. half. Immediately upon the creation of the Jewish half and its decleration of independance Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt immediately invaded.
Those 750,000 “Palestinian” refugees who left were not forced out by Jews, but asked to leave by invading Arab armies who wanted to use their homes as bases to stage their genocidal campaign against Israel. They figured that everyone could move back in nice and quick once they killed the Jews, but unfortunately for them they lost the war. Jordan then occupied West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza until 1967. No one ever complained of an occupation then, and no one ever referred to a “palestinian people”… they didn’t exist. “Palestinian” didn’t start being used to describe Arabs of the west bank and gaza until after the 1967 war, when Israel took West Bank and Gaza from Jordan and Egypt (who, their entire 20 year period occupying them, didn’t allow the arabs they displaced in 1948 to move back in, and they still keep them in “refugee” camps that are more like cities).

But anyway, no Israel is not “occupying” arab land, as a “Palestinian” state never existed in modern day Israel, Gaza or West Bank. It was, however, created in 1922, and remains to this day a purely arab, whose inhabitants are no different genetically, culturally or linguistically than the “palestinians”, and it’s called Jordan.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:55 am 93. thenakedemperor:

Sir Bubblehead,

I was being a bit sarcastic, but DAMN, that’s a good response!!

Now is a few others will reply, perhaps a few more modern myths will be smashed. Thw willfully ignorant, however, will of course refuse to learn.

Jan 16, 2009 - 9:59 am 94. jr565:

Further to this point:
“Pete, they are not signatories to the GC. AQ is not a country. The Taliban is not a country. They are unlawful combatants. They could be summarily shot in the field. Why is it that you liberals cannot ever get your facts straight on this? Why is it that you so support the enemies of this country? It never fails.”

Not only that but under the Geneva Convention people can be held for the duration of a conflict who ARE signatories to the Geneva Convention and don’t have to be “charged”. Maybe Pete wants to rethink his support of the Geneva Conventions considering how harsh and against the Geneva Conventions they are.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:14 am 95. njoriole:

Sean writes, regarding “the disputed land of Gaza. Israel, is the one that is occupying land..” Hey Sean, you must have missed all the media coverage of Israel evacuating Gaza (at great expense and internal upheaval, as Israeli Jews were forcibly evicted) some time back. It’s the classic Arab terrorist dodge: the occuation made me do it. Except, as I just indicated, there IS NO occupation of Gaza now, nor has there been for the last two+ years. So, what have the “Palestinians” done with Gaza now that it is all theirs? Take the billions in international aid (mostly from the US and Israel-imagine that!) and create a Switzerland of the Near East? Build schools, hospitals, highways, sewage treatment plants, etc? Apparently, their desire to eradicate the Jews takes precedence over all that messy and difficult nation building; they just want jihad in the way of Allah. Well, they got it and, as usual, they cry about the results (and get their useful idiot Westerners, such as Sean, to join in the crybaby chorus). Sean, for your information, when Hamas/Hezbollah/Al aqsa/Tanzim/PFLP/etc. cry about “occupation,” they mean ANY Jew occupying ANY part of the land of the Ummah. Simply put, if you are a Jew, you have no right to be there at all, notwithstanding anything else that was ever done or said by anyone. Why is that so hart to understand?

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:28 am 96. Anton:

95. njoriole: I beg to differ, it has been occupied by Iran for a couple of years noq.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:44 am 97. sonoffar:

You have all made very good points concerning the correctness of Gitmo, and places like it, I would however be remiss if I did not remind you all of the fact that despite your opinions to the contrary, Geraldo Rivera says the prison at Guantonimo Bay is a, “terrible place”, and must be closed, with all current detainees sent to Levenworth.
Now there’s a nice place.

Jan 16, 2009 - 10:52 am 98. Rex:

@92 Frank,

I’ll tell you what freedoms were lost since 9/11: the exact same freedoms that were lost already due to the war on drugs and the collection of taxes. Seriously.

The librarians complained about the “new” procedures for investigating terrorists when all the new procedures did was extend what was already extant for investigations into drug dealers and tax evaders.

The one good thing about Obama’s election is that maybe we’ll see some real analysis instead of the gut reactions of people blinded by BDS.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:06 am 99. Rex:

If waterboarding is torture, why did Congress explicitly refuse to exclude it when defining torture in their legislation?

From a legal standpoint, “torture” is what is defined in the United States Code by Congress, and is not something decided by the CIA, DOD, or the President.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:08 am 100. AntonK:

Even IF you give them combatant status, what did we “charge” individual POWs with in any other war?

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:13 am 101. John Steele:

There’s a fair number of people commenting whose minds are made up and have no interest in being confused by mere facts. The One is definitely your man.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:17 am 102. Mark Weylin:

Every time I think about how you peoples’ facist ideology has now run its course and been resoundingly rejected by the American people, it puts a big smile on my face and a skip in my step!

Yes we can! (live up to the obligations set forth in our Constitution)

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:37 am 103. Rex:

@100 AntonK,

That’s a big “if.” What happened in other wars was that if a POW were accused of a crime, they would be charged and tried, usually by court-martial. Think Nurenburg Trials. Other POW’s were set free AFTER the war ended. The thinking on retaining POW’s until after the war was so they wouldn’t return to the battlefield. Latest estimates say that 60 of the detainees who were released from Gitmo have returned to the fighting (against us).

Hey, if this were such a clearcut black and white issue, it wouldn’t be so political.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:39 am 104. thenakedemperor:

Again, Mark, just what obligations are set forth in our Constitution for non-Americans committing acts in foreign lands?

Also, please define “Facist”.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:44 am 105. RodBlago:

Liberals will never let the facts get in the way of their sick fantasies about Gitmo.

Jan 16, 2009 - 11:54 am 106. Anton:

Who is this AntonK and why is he aping my moniker?

Anyway, granting captured terrorists “enemy combatant status” would mean that are the armed representatives of another nation i.e. soldiers. Please point out the nation that these people are the representative of. That way, as soon as peace is concluded, we can send them home.

AQ has no home, no government, no status under the law. No treaty can be made with them.

Jan 16, 2009 - 12:03 pm 107. Wil:

Mark Weylin
Where in the US Constitution , state what Amendment and article that states that foreign enemies of the US captured by our military be given protection under the US Constitution ? Another question , elaborate on the political term , fascism .Explain to us it’s origin and history , who founded it , who influenced the founders and what political literature and ideology did they follow ? Mark , before you throw a loaded political term like Fascism , you better know what you are talking about because unlike in the classroom where you only hear what your teacher wants you to hear , in this blog and in real life , there are folks who had lived and know what real Fascism was really like . So Mark , answer thenakedemperor and my questions .

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:10 pm 108. thenakedemperor:

Wil, I’ve exhausted whistling the “Jeopardy” theme while waiting for a reasoned response from Mr. Weylin. I’m now down to listening to crickets chirping.

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:18 pm 109. Marc Malone:

#56 Anton – You’re right, of course. I knew all that; just didn’t get into all the details, as my post was plenty long already, even after editing.

It is my undrestanding, however, that some of the detainees are simply captured non-uniformed combatants. I could be misinformed.

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:29 pm 110. Wil:

Sean

Let me asked you some historical questions about the origins of the Palestinians

1) Who were their ancestors
2) What were their achievements throughout the centuries
3) Where are the ruins that state that their ancestors owned the land in the past
4) Show me their history from 2000 BC until to the present times .
5) If the Palestinians owned the land , then explain to me why the ancient Babylonians , Assyrians , Persians , Greeks and Romans had a record of Jews in Israel/ Palestine but not Palestinians . Explain to me when the Christians knights sacked Jerusalem during the Crusades , they killed the Arabs and Jewish populations inside the city , but no mention of Palestinians . When Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the 19th century , he verified the continued existence of Jews in the Holy Land as well as Christians and muslims , but there was no mention of Palestinians . Same thing in records prior to WWII, there were no records of Palestinians ? How can a people claim to exist for centuries does not have any historical records to backed them up while the Jews who had almost three thousand years of ruins , records and continued presence are still considered invaders ?

So Sean , explain your post !!

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:43 pm 111. paul_unalaska:

Sean, I’ve got to ask. Have you yourself EVER left the U.S. ? You know, the backing of your ‘International community hating the U.S.’ et al.

Here’s some news for you. The international community can care less. I was in West Africa (Mali, Morocco, Burkina Faso), France and Belgium the past 6 months. Not one incident my 6 + months in these 5 countries. Believe me, I’m an easy person to spot in these locales. My 4 years of French pales when visiting 3 of the 5 aforementioned countries.

Sean, perhaps you should worry more about your own actions, dealings than trying to suck or kiss up to the ‘International Powers’ that be. It’ll get you, and the U.S. nowhere. For the aforementioned are much like the parents of that 16 year old girl you were dating in your teens. Sure, they’ll be friendly and amicable with you, yet they’re going to pay close attention to you and ‘their baby girl.’

You try much to hard to come off as some seen all, done all novice. Your insults, put downs are sophomoric. Similarly to a Sociology student or Peace Corps wanna be. You know, Peace Corps. The tens of billions of dollars, low wage workers the U.S. and other allied countries send to countries that can’t, or won’t provide the most basic of necessities to their people? i.e. Palestine. There’s a lot of Peace Corps yokels I’ve come across in Africa. Unbelievably, they sound even more informed than you!

If you are a student, then you already know your group is the highest %age of unemployed folks in the U.S. Where did those other jobs go to, you may ask? Why they’ve been outsourced and given to different countries and both legal and illegal immigrants within our walls. You know, the same folks who supposedly ‘Hate the U.S.’

Again, really do your homework and not just listen to your Professor with the ponytail who attends your campus parties. They’re feeding you B S. It’s a shame you can’t see or even accept that.

Jan 16, 2009 - 2:50 pm 112. paul_unalaska:

Lastly, regarding PE Obama’s prior “Constitution lawyer’ status – I’m surprised UhBama didn’t realize nominating Hilary Clinton as SCOTUS is breaking a Constitutional law. Article 1, Section 6. What? Obama breaking the law? Say it ain’t so..!

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:08 pm 113. Peter the Bubblehead:

93. thenakedemperor wrote:
I was being a bit sarcastic, but DAMN, that’s a good response!!

Peter replies: Yes, I realized it was sarcasm after I read a little further along in your post, but I figured what I posted would do no harm anyway. Maybe open a few eyes. Thanks for your own response.

Jan 16, 2009 - 3:29 pm 114. njcommuter:

I can’t believe all the right-wing, Neo-con idiots on here. Forget the Geneva convention, we have something called a Constitution. Gitmo was specifically created to get around the Constitution.

Wrong. The detention center (it’s not technically a prison) was created to get around SCOTUS rulings which are, by any reasonable standard, capricious and without basis in the Constitution.

The Constitution should not be “whatever SCOTUS says it is.” It should be a lasting document, not a “living” document. It should not be based on what other countries do, as at least one of our Justices thinks. It should not be stretched to interfere with decisions on the battlefield, or with the conduct of foreign policy, except as it relates to explicit provisions in the Constitution. SCOTUS should recognize that it’s authority is not without limit.

And the Constitution must never be read as a suicide pact.

Jan 17, 2009 - 4:52 am 115. Anonymous:

“I can’t believe all the right-wing, Neo-con idiots on here. Forget the Geneva convention, we have something called a Constitution.”

Constitutional protections have never, I repeat NEVER, been afforded to enemy combatants, that is until now. You know not of what you speak when you say that enemey combatants should have such protections.

Jan 17, 2009 - 7:59 am 116. Trent:

Thanks for the story Gabe. The MSM has made Camp Delta into a horror story with no facts to back it up. The last story I saw on the camp had stock footage from Camp X-Ray and that hasn’t been used since late 2002.

And yes, for all those ‘anti-Gitmo’ folks out there, I know for a fact how it is there. I was a company commander at Camp Delta from June 2004 to April 2005.

My men and women were on the receiving end of everything the ‘tainers’(detainee’s) could throw at them. That’s being punched, kicked, spit on or getting a fecal material, urine or semen cocktail thrown on them. Not one of them ever left the block either.

And in that almost year we were there, not one of my soldiers or the airmen in my company ever came to me and said that the ‘tainers’ were tortured or abused. But then the Oregonian (the paper near where I live) didn’t want to hear that or print it either.

Jan 17, 2009 - 12:54 pm 117. plutosdad:

“Umm just a little point, The Geneva Convention?

Incarceration without trial?”

Can you even read? The Geneva Convention states you CANNOT try POWs in court. You can’t try a man just for following his country’s leaders. The Red Cross fought for a hundred years to get countries to agree to that, now you and every other leftist wants to throw out POW rights. Amazing.

Jan 17, 2009 - 4:14 pm 118. ThinkingPerson:

Pat J….You can feign all the horror you want but you seek to defend the same animals that beheaded Daniel Pearl. All of your “I’d put a bullet…” is just talk. You bleeding-heart liberals are against average Americans even having guns. Nice to use a Republican argument though WHEN it suits you. You can’t be a limp noodle liberal and stand up for Gitmo animals. You come from the same ilk that abort babies yet would hold up water-supply projects for million of people because of some almost extinct albino ant. Liberal morals are always in the wrong place.

Jan 17, 2009 - 4:52 pm 119. ThinkingPerson:

plutosdad…It’s pointless to reason with Pete or Pat J. They are close-minded, big-mouthed liberals. They seek to take away American rights while giving away our power to the UN. Thus we have Obamination. Again, just to let you know what you’re dealing with.

Jan 17, 2009 - 4:54 pm 120. Maverick:

It’s a fact that our media has mislead the American people about the conditions at Gitmo, but it doesn’t stop there. Other media in England has also done the same thing to their people. When the rumors about the abuse became public, no one got there faster then the International Red Cross and Amnesty International only to make America look bad to the world. No one has an agenda more then the International Red Cross and Amnesty International. In fact, both agencies had stayed on at Gitmo to make sure the enemy combatants got better treatment then the felons in prisons. Years ago when I was in the military we were given permission to take water and food to an American who was being kept in a small cubicle. The International Red Cross accompanied us because they were denied permission to see the American being held captive. Once we got there we found the American covered in feces and with no clothes on. There was nothing in the small cubicle for the American to sit on. The International Red Cross brought water, towels, and a robe for the American to wear. Before we left, the International Red Cross asked to see our report. Their report differed from ours. We had reported what the conditions were like for the American and the International Red Cross reported that they had witness nothing out of the ordinary for someone being held captive. In their report, they reported nothing about the American covered in feces, nothing to wear, and nothing to sit on and no bed either. To the International Red Cross what the American was going through was normal for someone being held captive. It’s funny how they hold different standards for the enemy combatants at Gitmo and the American captive we were allowed to visit.

Jan 18, 2009 - 7:20 am 121. SGT Ted:

“Palestine” and Palestinian” is a propaganda fiction manufactured by the KGB in the 60’s for the PLO to use, as both were allied in their opposition to Israel and the US support of same. This is really leftovers from the Cold War that have taken on a life of their own.

Jan 18, 2009 - 8:11 am 122. A Kansan:

Glock or hang all of them. Kindly don’t ship them to Leavenworth. What’s that supposed to change? Are their military guards there supposed to give US better protection?

Jan 18, 2009 - 11:36 am 123. Etudiant:

Guantanamo Bay makes other countries hate America more.

Jan 18, 2009 - 7:31 pm 124. Dan:

Terrorists respect one thing. Applied power. Use it or lose it. They hate us because they are told to by their leaders.

Jan 18, 2009 - 9:00 pm 125. Dan:

Comment #72, Dawn

There right and wrong in this world. Stratling the fence just gives you a sore crotch. Our Soldiers are the good guys, Nuff said.

Jan 18, 2009 - 9:04 pm 126. Dave:

To PeterTheBubbleHead:

I was bout to post on this thread and caught your posts. I’ll move on. Apparently the left is well over there head here and there is little more I can add.

And thank you for your service to our country ( – speaking of the other really selfless stuff you did before posting on comment boards.)

Jan 18, 2009 - 9:21 pm 127. Войска ПВО:

Etudiant writes:

“Guantanamo Bay makes other countries hate America more.

..and your offer of proof for that statement is?

Jan 18, 2009 - 9:41 pm 128. Doug:

Etudiant:

You got some evidence or are you just parroting what your Psych 101 prof told you today?

Jan 18, 2009 - 11:57 pm 129. Peter the Bubblehead:

123. Etudiant wrote:
Guantanamo Bay makes other countries hate America more.

Peter writes: You make accusations, but you don’t back them up with facts. Cite a few facts that the world hates the US because of Gitmo. Your opinion does nothing to advance the discussion.

Jan 19, 2009 - 5:58 am 130. Peter the Bubblehead:

Thank you, Dave.

Jan 19, 2009 - 6:01 am 131. ali:

Shame on you for using Vet for Freedom organization name in vain. Someone please find out who this idiot is. We do NOT want him in our organization.

Jan 19, 2009 - 11:47 am 132. Mike A:

No wonder 1 in 3 females in the military get raped. If you think that what we doing to innocent people in Guantanamo is okay I bet you think raping your sisters is okay too.

The men that is doing the rape is pro-violent people like those in Vet for Freedom. If you are anti-violence you would join the military to defend not attack and most certainly not rape your own.

Jan 19, 2009 - 11:50 am 133. End the Fed:

What a hit job article. Never mentions torture, lack of habeaus corpus, etc. What a joke of an article. And some of the pro-torture, pro-police state, comments that are posted in this comments section are just despicable. It is anti-American to hold people without trial, without a lawyer, to torture them, to assume guilt and then try to prove innocents. Not to mention these tactics could be used against political dissenters in the US. Every day, more and more terrorists are being created because people are being radicalized by what Guantanamo does to people. It is a great recruiting tool (or recruitament, as Bush would say) to Al Qaeda. It sad how you sheeple will support anything your lord and savior (George Bush) tells you. If he told you a pile of dog crap was ‘Patriot Food’, you’d gobble it up just like you’ve gobbled up the ‘Patriot’ Act and the Military Commissions act and the entire fascist police state that he’s installed over the past 8 years of his dictatorship.

Jan 19, 2009 - 1:18 pm 134. Peter the Bubblehead:

133. End the Fed:

Peter writes: End of Fed, try reading the thread before you comment. If you had, you might know the Geneva Convention does not allow for habeaus corpus. These terrorists are enemy combatants. They’re lucky the US goes to the efforts it does to cloth and feed these terrorists, giving in to their demands for special treatment like prayer rugs and copies of the koran.

If they got what they deserved, they would be shot on sight on the battlefield. The Geneva Convention allows that for non-uniformed combatants.

Jan 19, 2009 - 5:40 pm 135. Pat J:

118. ThinkingPerson:
—————-
Listen up Toilet Paper. You don’t know me. SO don’t judge me.

But, let me tell you a few things about this so-called “liberal.”

1. I have no problem with gun ownership. And although I do not own one, I would have no problem with putting a bullet into the head of Daniel Pearl’s murderers. Chances are so would most other “liberals.”

2. Yes you can stand up for Gitmo detainees especially when one of them has been imprisoned seven years since he was 14. Something is very wrong with the American justice system when we allow this to happen. By the way. He’s 21 now. If he wasn’t a terrorist monster then, he sure as hell is one now thanks to this administration you and your fellow Pajamistas follow so blindly.

Lastly:

“You come from the same ilk that abort babies yet would hold up water-supply projects for million of people because of some almost extinct albino ant.”

What the f*****g hell are you talking about? But just for the sake of things…

3. I am anti-abortion.
4. I am not pro almost extinct albino ant.

Jan 19, 2009 - 6:58 pm 136. Blah Blah:

Having read this commentary, it is amazing. Being an independent who sees both the good and bad of Guantanamo and our other policies since 9/11, it seems to me it is the so-called “liberals” who have put forth more fact than regurgitating the same “spin” that the Bush Administration and Media outlets have used to sell the Iraq War, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc. to the American Public. I find it amusing that anytime a conservative is presented with fact that goes against their views or beliefs, it turns into a liberal bashing with the usual “you don’t respect our military”, “you kill babies”, blah blah. Surprising that this is the same rhetoric that you saw from Conservatives and Right-wing pundits during the 2008 Election.

I’d like someone to present HARD FACTS of how the War on Terror, Guantanamo or other Bush policies have made us safer? All the conservatives comments here seems to discount any argument by “liberals” on the basis they’re not presenting facts, but were are the facts to prove your points? Do you have hard facts or evidence that Prisoners weren’t tortured at Guantanamo (as a point, no such evidence or facts were presented in this article, however the fact that Prisoners were tortured has been made a public for a while, and the Judge in charge of the Guantanamo trials just issued a report regarding this last week). Here are the hard facts of what are war on terror has done:

1) Iran has more influence now in the Middle East than it ever did before. Do you not recall that Iraq used to be Iran’s biggest enemy in the region?

2) Mullah Omer and his Taliban are now stronger than ever because of our unnecessary war in Iraq over the last 5 years that has taken the focus off of the the real Terrorist stronghold, the Aghan-Pakistan border.

3) Many of our policies and actions have served as red meat for Terrorist recruitment. For instance, a poster made mention of a 14 year old who has been held for 7 years in Guantanamo with no charges brought due to non-existent evidence.

4) OUR WORLD STANDING AND MORAL AUTHORITY HAS DIMINISHED SERVERELY. The fact that I actually read a comment from someone that there is no such thing as the “international community” or an “international image” is preposterous. If that were the case, there would be no boycotts in any other country against the US or any country for that matter. We are humans, and humans will always judge others and form images and opinions. The poster of that comment must be living in a perfect world many of us strive to live in, where no one sees color, race, ethnicity, etc. therefore the world living in harmony as one. Please, if my employer forms an image of me simply based on my daily work product, if banks don’t lend based on your credit history then sorry to bust your bubble but countries and their people form opinions and images of other nations based on their actions. I don’t know what world you’re living in, but to say that our image hasn’t been hurt during the Bush Administration, you are lying to yourself and spreading falsehoods to others.

Finally, I am an American born and raised Muslim and have visited Saudia Arabia, India, Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan. To the poster that posted Islam is not a religion, please take your racism and predjuice elsewhere. People like you and the hate you spew makes you no different than the radical Islam clerics that say the sames things you do about Christianity or Judaism. All religion at some level divides and spreads hate against others that are not like us. Evangelicals get a bad name because of the few that use their beliefs to spread hate against others who don’t have the same beliefs. Islam is no different. MOST of us want to live in peace and harmony with all beings, but there is a minority that wants Jihad. Next time before you make such strong and hate filled comments directed towards all that follow my religion, examine your words and tell me how they are any different than those that spread hate and lies in our world.

Jan 20, 2009 - 12:01 pm 137. Milton:

Don’t know if this thread is dead or not, but it’s damn interesting.

“Constitutional protections have never, I repeat NEVER, been afforded to enemy combatants, that is until now.”

I disagree. Technically speaking, the military has always had a method for dealing with enemy combatants. The military is mentioned in the Constitution, designated in Art 1 Sec 8, with the president serving as commander in chief in Art 2. I assume the uniform code of military justice deals with enemy combatants. If not, then the military certianly has protocol and rules dealing with enemy combatants located in other manuals. This legal code is approved by congress and designated by congress to military comanders through law. So, specifically speaking, congress, which makes the laws, can determine the proper legal course for these prisoners. It is all quite constitutional, actually.

Let’s be clear. These are battle-field prisoners. To be dealt with by the military. As designated by congress. It’s all quite constitutional. To be sure, Congress could close GTMO today, if they really wanted. They don’t, though.

Congress is the problem here. They would rather point the finger and blame the president, because it’s fun, convienent and trendy. But it also casts a nasty light on the military.

I do get squeamish when I hear stories of American residents taken to GTMO without charge or trial (not people caught in combat, but people here in the US). That is clearly a violation of the constitution.

Jan 20, 2009 - 12:42 pm 138. TEBA:

WINSTON CHURCHILL WROTE “Islam in a man is as dangerous as hydrophobia in a dog.” Does that make Gitmo America’s home for mad dogs?
What will happen when Obama sets them loose in the street.

Jan 22, 2009 - 1:50 am 139. lee:

BTW, don’t fool yourselves into thinking that most countries will actually accept GITMO prisoners as some gesture of welcome to Obama. I heard Ireland was willing to take in my 50, but such willingness will not be the norm.

Jan 23, 2009 - 12:46 pm 140. Thomas Patrick Folan:

God Bless You Gabe Ledeen and all who support Vets For Freedom.
Continue to tell the truth about Gitmo!
These prisoners are like animals.
I am proud that Ireland may take some of these prisoners.
She will treat them the same way the U.S. has. Namely HUMANE !
I am a citizen of America & Ireland.
Sincerely, Thomas Patrick Folan

Jan 26, 2009 - 8:48 am 141. An American:

You folks that think America is so bad……
Send me your address and I’ll come help you pack so you can enjoy the freedoms and rights in another country…..
This is America, you have the right to move anywhere you like… Spread your garbage somewher else…

Jan 27, 2009 - 9:24 am 142. Chris White:

The new President needs to read this. Then go there then make up his mind.
This is a great artical and needs to be sent to all America.
Semper Fi.

Jan 27, 2009 - 10:07 am 143. MarineMike:

It’s been an interesting albeit sometimes boring…eh Sean, Travis, End the Fed, and a few others. I wonder why the rest of you even try to have a discourse with them…just ignore them and they’ll go away.
There is a way to end all this Gitmo squabbling…let’s just take applications from those who object to Gitmo, including Obama, Pelosi and Reid, and then send each one a member of the 245 being held. They can put them up in their homes until we can bring them to trial. Gitmo closes, unlawful enemy combatants taken out of that Purgetory thay are living in, and the left-wing who participate get to feel good. Problem solved!

Jan 27, 2009 - 11:04 am 144. NumberNine:

Chris White,

That won’t happen because Pres. Obama will never admit when he’s wrong.

Jan 27, 2009 - 4:57 pm 145. cargosquid:

If the Commander in Chief is willing to close GTMO’s Camp Delta, then it is his responsibility for any actions taken by the released. If they go back to war and are killed or captured by our forces, the evidence will be plain that Obama willfully placed our country in jeopardy. Impeachment, anyone?

Jan 27, 2009 - 7:19 pm 146. Pamela Jones:

My son was one of the first to transport detainees from Afghanistan. He was then stationed at Gitmo. At that time the General in charge did not allow the National Anthem to be played over the loud speakers as it offended the detainees. My son’s quarters were at tent that temps reached 115 – and his shower was a hose over a make-shift stall; while the detainees were allowed to have 2 hot/cool showers a day in a building. Finally, it was discovered that general was himself a Muslim, and was removed from his Post. The national anthem was then played over the speaker system at the rising of the American flag.
The Red Cross supplied many things for the detainees and did not even offer even any cookies or any thing to our men and women serving there. Detainees got new Nike sneakers, as if they needed them. I just do not understand it – they are considered criminals – treated as guests… I hope some of this has changed. My son finally did get decent quarters later.

Jan 28, 2009 - 7:45 am 147. M.J. Granger:

As Joint Detainee Operations Group (JDOG) Medical Service Officer at GTMO with then JTF 160 from February – June 2002, I can tell you that Gabe Ledeen’s observation was as true when I was there as it is now. Only then the conditions were more austere. Camp X-Ray was a dog kennel, but detainees were treated with the utmost dignity and respect. It was my job to oversee the medical and preventive medical operations both in the camp and at the Navy Fleet Hospital caring for the detainees. My unit commander was the Camp Commandant during that period. Every day there were heroics in and out of the camp by Army MPs, Navy medical personnel, Coast Guard sentries, Air Force doctors, and Marine’s and corpsmen. I have been to Iraq (OIF III); to Abu Ghraib and Ashraf, so I can compare and contrast the missions and operations from a high level and say that although there are those who view the incarceration missions as punishment missions, the vast majority of Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) Military Police and supporting personnel take their jobs extremely seriously and perform at the highest possible level, 12-14 hours per day, seven days a week in most cases (no days “off”). The problem I have seen is that the incarceration mission is often confused with the interrogation mission. Jailers are not interrogators, nor should they be. The disgraceful conduct of a few jailers who were inticed into the interrogation mission at Abu Ghraib in 2003 is an aberration – but what disturbs me is the lack of prosecution of those who put those troops up to what they did. The secret squirrels behind the mistreatment of detainees need to be brought to justice. As for habeus corpus being applied to the detainees at GTMO, that would be a travesty. Habeus corpus applies only to citizens of the United States, who have legal rights of citizens because they also have responsibilities of citizenship. When Donal Rumsfeld visited us at GTMO in the very early stages of that mission, he told us unequivocally that the detainees were not protected under the Geneva Conventions and therefore were not entitled to their protections – HOWEVER, he told us, we will treat them “within the spirit of the conventions” and “within the letter of U.S. Army and Department of Defense Regulations, policies, guidelines and field manuals,” and “with dignity and respect.” That set the foundation of their treatment, and from what I saw, 99% of the time this was the case. Mr. Ledeen mentions daily verbal and physical assaults perpetrated on MPs by detainees – this was also common place in the first half of 2002, and if he had stayed longer and had access to more guards he might have learned what some of those other abuses were. I can assure you that your imagination could probably not help you in knowing what some of the detainees are capable of. It is still an on-going mission, so I am prevented here and in a book, which I have written and am waiting to publish, from disclosing unique operational details at this time, but if and when the mission shuts down (and I hope it never does), I will be ready to share more of how hard we work and what sacrifices we make to keep those in our custody safe and well cared for. The liberal media and politicians are shameless, selfish and ignorant about what it takes to win a Global War on Terror. Our proud and faithful volunteer military will win out, if they are allowed to do so.

Jan 28, 2009 - 11:04 am 148. Ken:

Hey End the Fed,

You haven’t seen dictatorship yet, but its coming within the next 4 years. Its also amusing to hear you speak of “sheeple” when people, like you, would be throwing themselves off of a cliff if Obama told them too. Take a good long look in the mirror, if you can.

I love how liberals will come to this site to trash articles that don’t agree with what THEY think. They demand evidence or proof yet provide none when they say ignorant things like “Gitmo has hurt our reputation across the world!”. What a joke.

All I know is, if anything else in this country goes BOOM! at the hands of Muslim extremists while Obamessiah is president-he’s done, and so are the democrats.

Jan 29, 2009 - 6:37 am 149. kerri:

In reference to those who feel that the officers in the military only say what they are told to say: that may be true in some cases, but my brother served at Gitmo, when you ask him how it really was you can bet that they behave in a professional way. My husband works for the Federal Beaurea of Prisons you get the same deal, and in most circumstances the officers have to put up with lots of crap from nasty inmates. The inmates are treated way better than they deserve to be.
Another note….many people don’t really understand the hate the terrorists harbor for Americans. If given the chance they would turn on them just as quick as anyone.

Jan 30, 2009 - 1:10 pm 150. BubbaJarhead:

Unfortunately, Gabe’s visit and review of Guantanamo will never be publicly aired on ABC, CBS, NBC or for that matter CNN. We’ve seen bits and pieces, but only that.

The bastards incarcerated at Guantanamo deserve to be there in the first place. They do not deserve nor fall under the Geneva Convention because THEY ARE NOT PRISONERS OF WAR, BUT RATHER TERRORISTS FOR GOD’S SAKE AND DON’T FORGET WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR.

In fact, these scummy lil bastards are being treated far better than prisoners in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In fact, the military has even provided these pukes with HD televisions! No shit.

Rights! There should be no rights for TERRORISTS! They are exactly what they are, a conglomerate of despicable fanatics and nutbars, who in the majority of cases, did not give their VICTIMS a second thought before cutting their heads off.

Americans have become so “politically correct” they’ve become soft and tend to “forgive and forget” such atrocities faster than most nationalities suffering similar atrocities.

‘Wonder how TERRORISTS are handled in IRAN, KOREA, SYRIA, CHINA or for that matter, RUSSIA? ‘Bet they never make it to the cell…

One cannot fight TERRORISM “civily.” TERRORISM is meant to be brutal beyond comprehension that’s WHY they do it in the first place. To strike immediate and permanent FEAR into their targets. Look at how the Israeli’s handle HAMAS… They lob a 122mm rocket into an Israeli city at anything, the Israeli’s respond with immediate and fierce bombardment that hits within 100 meters from where the rocket was launched. Such matters MUST be handled immediately and decisively otherwise, the aggressor becomes an even BIGGER BULLY.

The only reason Iran has not openly tipped the scales of its TERRORISM by attacking its neighbors is because they’re surrounded on three borders by neighbors, who KNOW EXACTLY WHO AND WHAT THEY ARE. As soon as the U.S. pulls out of Iraq WATCH what happens… IRAN will invade Iraq with the help of tens of thousands of Sadar sympathizers and then, the World will see what the “Bully” is for what it is…

Should Guantanomo be closed, it will be the beginning of a rapid “domino effect” of the US’ new World policy and strategy of backpeddling and kissing enemy asses around the World in an effort to show that we (Americans) are supposed to be FRIENDS. All it will show the World is the US’ lack to keep its BACKBONE.

STAY STRONG AMERICA. BACK OUR MILITARY. IT’S THE ONLY SOLUTION TO KEEPING TERRORISM AT BAY.

Feb 2, 2009 - 3:23 pm 151. cargosquid:

Re-open Alcatraz. Couldn’t you picture Pelosi and Boxer the next day?

Feb 4, 2009 - 6:04 pm 152. Thomas Patrick Folan:

From Today’s Navy Times:
Detainees ‘Return To The Fight’
As Many As 60 Released From Guantanamo Suspected Of New Terrorism
(Washington Post, February 23, 2009, Pg. 11)
How many other Guantanamo Bay detainees have committed terrorist acts after being released? According to Pentagon officials, the number could be as high as 60. The Defense Intelligence Agency concluded in January that 17 former Guantanamo inmates, in addition to Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi, have “returned to the fight,” and it suspects, but does not have conclusive proof, that 43 others have as well.

Feb 23, 2009 - 10:01 am 153. Thomas Folan:

This was recently in the newsapaper
The Real Gitmo 100% HUMANE
HAVING just re turned from leading a con gressional delegation to the terrorist-detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, I am more convinced than ever that President Obama’s executive order to close Gitmo by next Jan. 22 is wrong and misguided and, if fully implemented, will threaten American security at home and abroad.

To be fair, the president deserves much credit for a series of key decisions he has made in the war against terrorism: 1) launching predator missiles against Taliban and al Qaeda locations in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater; 2) detaining, without trial, enemy combatants captured and imprisoned overseas, and 3) invoking the “state secrets” privilege to block a lawsuit on CIA renditions (the practice of allowing other nations to interrogate non-US citizen terror detainees).

Unfortunately, his Gitmo decision undercuts these positive actions.

It has become an article of faith among the MoveOn.org crowd and the Democratic Party’s liberal base to denounce Guantanamo as a symbol of inhumane treatment and torture. (Indeed, in his address to Congress on Tuesday, the president announced the closing of Guantanamo in the same paragraph in which he said “that is why I can stand here tonight and say . . . the United States of America does not torture.”)

Yet that symbolism doesn’t square with the real Gitmo.

Detainees at Guantanamo are treated far better than most American prisoners in the US jails and prisons I’ve inspected over the years. The unfounded accusations that are so regularly and cavalierly made about Guantanamo are a slander against the brave men and women of our armed forces, who perform their duties at that facility so professionally and under such duress.

If there’s any scandal at Guantanamo, it is that the detainees are treated too well. Consider what I observed:

* Detainees get three full meals a day with a choice of menu.

* Each detainee receives a Koran and a prayer rug.

* Arrows throughout the facility point toward Mecca.

* Detainees receive full medical treatment – including psychiatric services. There is one medical personnel for every two detainees.

* Detainees who comply with regulations are allowed out of their cells for 16 to 20 hours a day and participate in various recreational and educational activities including soccer, language training and art classes.

* Noncompliant detainees – including the hardest of the hard core – are allowed out of their cells for four to seven hours a day. (It was particularly galling to observe a vicious terrorist reclining in the sun like a Palm Beach retiree.)

* Detainees have access to live TV, books and two daily Arab newspapers plus USA Today. (I suppose it would be inhumane to subject them to The New York Times.)

* Detainees are allowed to confer to discuss courtroom strategy.

* Guards within the facility are not armed and are regularly subjected to abuse and harassment, including having human feces and urine thrown at them.

These are not just my conclusions. The Defense Department has just finished its review of Guantanamo as ordered by President Obama and determined that conditions comply with the Geneva Conventions: “No prohibited acts were found and conditions are humane.”

We are at war with Islamic terrorism. Gitmo is a major front in that war. Closing Guantanamo could well mean releasing deadly Islamic terrorists overseas or bringing them to American soil. It would be craven surrender to left-wing groups and uninformed, self-righteous world opinion. We must do all we can to convince President Obama to reverse his decision.

Rep. Pete King (R-LI) is the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee

Mar 1, 2009 - 9:14 am 154. Thomas Patrick Folan:

The facts on Gitmo:
This was written in the Weekly Standard:
Second Thoughts
The ‘most transparent administration in history’ buries a Gitmo report.
by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn
03/16/2009, Volume 014, Issue 25

At 12:01 P.M. on January 20, 2009, minutes before Barack Obama was sworn in as president, the first post went up on the Obama White House website. It included a reiteration of a campaign promise Obama repeatedly made: “President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history.”

Two days later, Obama ordered the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay closed. And two days after that, on January 24, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff wrote about a Pentagon study that will provide an early test of this promise: “The report, which could be released within the next few days, will provide fresh details about 62 detainees who have been released from Guantánamo and are believed by U.S. intelligence officials to have returned to terrorist activities.”

The report was not, in fact, released within the next few days. On February 2, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, the Pentagon spokesman who handles inquiries about Guantánamo, told us that the report would likely be released later that day. We were told to consult the website–defenselink.mil–that afternoon. No report. When we asked where it was, Commander Gordon wrote:
“Nothing today, please check back with me in a couple days.” We did. No report.

This pattern has repeated itself for a month. So what explains this failure to produce the report?

According to Gordon:
there may be a misunderstanding between when the updated threat analysis was delivered from DIA and the completion of an interagency review process prior to public release.
Right. So a report that was to have been released on February 2 was suddenly and inexplicably withheld.
The most transparent administration in history apparently realized that releasing a report about the recidivism of Guantánamo detainees could only complicate its effort to shut down the facility. The approximately 247 detainees still held there are the worst of the terrorists captured by the United States since 9/11. Those thought to have been low-risk releases have already been let go. And many of them turned out not to have been low-risk at all. Saudi Arabia recently published a list of its 85 most wanted terrorists; 11 of them had been detained at Guantánamo Bay.

Said Ali al-Shihri, who disappeared from his home in Saudi Arabia after spending months in a Saudi jihad rehabilitation program, recently showed up in a video posted on a jihadist website. He is now the deputy leader of al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch, which bombed the American embassy in Sana’a in September 2008. That attack killed 13 civilians, as well as six terrorists.

Mohammed Naim Farouq was released from Gitmo in July 2003. In 2006, the Defense Intelligence Agency listed him as one of the 20 most wanted terrorists operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Abdullah Saleh al Ajmi, a Kuwaiti, was detained at Gitmo, released, and then blew himself up in Mosul, Iraq, in March 2008. The attack killed 13 Iraqi soldiers and wounded dozens more.

Ibrahim Bin Shakaran and Mohammed Bin Ahmad Mizouz were both transferred from Guantánamo to Morocco in July 2004. In September 2007, they were convicted of being recruiters for Al Qaeda in Iraq.

These are detainees that the U.S. government determined were good candidates for release.

The ones who remain in Guantánamo are not. “In some cases, we do know that they’ll return to the battlefield because they’ve told us they will,” says Juan Zarate, counterterrorism czar in the Bush White House.

The question for the new president and his advisers is what is an acceptable level of risk. “They may say ‘These guys are dangerous but it’s better than keeping them,’ ” says Zarate. But “the government needs to be very clear and honest about who these guys are and take any such step to release them with our eyes wide open.”

Being clear and honest means sharing with Congress and the American public as much information as possible. Democratic senator Joseph Lieberman is calling for the report’s release: “We know that a number of detainees who have been released have returned to the battlefield to attack Americans and American interests abroad. The American people need to know what is in the report so that Congress can make an informed decision on what to do with the detainees currently held at Guantánamo and with combatants captured in the future in the war on terror.”

Mar 8, 2009 - 10:13 am 155. Thomas Patrick Folan:

I think Ralph Peters sums it all up:
LISTEN TO THE GITMO FIVE
WASHINGTON WONKS IN DENIAL KSM: TELLING US EXACTLY WHAT HE BELIEVES.
by Ralph Peters

AS White House staffer Jane Austen put it to Sen. Darcy: “It is a truth univer sally acknowledged that a single terrorist in possession of a good bomb must be in want of patient understanding.”

Unfortunately for Washington wonks determined to deny that Islamist extremists are motivated by extremist Islam, the pride and prejudice of Allah’s butchers were on public display (again) this week.

Framed in florid quotations from the Koran, the Gitmo Five – hard-core terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed – proclaimed in a filing released by a brave military judge that “We are terrorists to the bone” who regard the charges resulting from “the blessed 11 September operations” as “badges of honor.”

Desperate to placate its blame-America supporters, the Obama administration has clamped down on news from Guantanamo. Why? After their lurid criticisms of Gitmo, the Dems now have the world’s worst killers on their hands.

And they don’t know what to do. Responsibility sucks.

At the core of our inability to cope with Islamist terrorists lies Washington’s denial that fanatical Islam is even a factor. Yet refusing to accept that Islam Gone Wild is behind the actions of al Qaeda or the Taliban is akin to insisting that sex has nothing to do with making babies.

Other factors may intensify or accelerate a terrorist’s will to slaughter the innocent. But the dark heart of the matter is that these men believe they’re on a mission from their god to punish the godless (including fellow Muslims who don’t measure up).

Yet, no matter how fiercely our enemies declare that their faith compels them to kill, our elected and appointed officials continue to insist that the terrorists don’t understand themselves – that they’re really driven by economic factors or our own foreign-policy missteps, that their savage interpretation of Islam is only a ploy . . .

Shouldn’t we pay just a little attention to what our enemies say about themselves?

Radical Islam isn’t just a smokescreen. Jihad is real. And it ain’t about who got the Coca-Cola franchise in Khartoum.

As I seethe through DC meetings (always careful to wash thoroughly afterward), I’m continually disheartened by the contortions of “experts” determined to prove that enemies who regard death as a promotion aren’t really devout, that they just need hugs and massive amounts of aid.

A few weeks back, I spoke to a roomful of senior military officers. In response to my suggestion that we should listen to what terrorists are only too glad to tell us, a foreign “counterinsurgency expert” insisted that religion simply isn’t a factor.

To buttress his claim, he cited the survey every Muslims-R-Us analyst trots out: In questioning 138,000 prisoners who passed through US hands in Iraq, barely 10 percent claimed to be motivated by Islam, while 60 percent of the violent actors said they did it for money. (The rest were just in a bad mood.)

Even if every Iraqi told the complete truth, that misses the point. This isn’t about quantity, but the quality of commitment. Terrorist movements never field a majority or even a significant minority of a population. At most, a few hundred fanatics were behind 9/11.

Anyway, who paid the did-it-for-cash bunch? The religious fanatics.

Even in ethnic struggles, such as those in the Balkans in the 1990s, the violence begins with less than 1 percent of the population armed and determined. The ranks of the violent swell for various reasons, but it’s the hard-core believers in the supremacy of their blood or faith who instigate the destruction of troubled societies.

To counter that carpetbagger’s statistics, I pointed out that a sampling of 138,000 German POWs in 1945 would have shown that fewer than 5 percent were unrepentant believers in Nazi ideology. But subtract Nazism from the German political equation, and there would’ve been no World War II in Europe. True believers shatter worlds.

As for the argument that not every terrorist lived in a state of perfect religious purity before jumping into jihad, that utterly misses the point: A society’s prevailing sense of right and wrong is shaped by centuries of religious culture. American atheists conform to behavioral values ingrained in us all by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian authority.

In the Greater Middle East, even lackadaisical Muslims have been molded by the legacy of 13 centuries of Islam. Thus Mom thinks it a splendid thing that her son strapped on a bomb and became a martyr by murdering 40 innocents in a market.

Her culture admires that “sacrifice.” Ours doesn’t.

Listen to the Gitmo Five. Unlike our Washington pols, they have intellectual integrity. They’re telling us honestly who they are and why they seek to kill us.

Our response? “They don’t know what they’re talking about.”

Mar 12, 2009 - 7:24 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: