- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
January 23, 2009
Exclusive: Closing Gitmo – Making Us ‘Feel Good’ at the Expense of National Security
Following his suspension of war crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay, also known as Gitmo, President Obama issued the executive order on January 22nd that the military prison facility housing Islamic terrorists captured on the battlefield will be closed within one year.
In an especially reassuring moment during the public announcement, Obama stopped to ask attorney Greg Craig how the “disposal” of the detainees would be handled and was reminded that the process has yet to be worked out. Speaking of reassurance, during a Jpress conference with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Major Garrett of FOX news asked if the Army manual would be the new guide for interrogation techniques, since Obama has renounced such techniques as waterboarding. Gibbs said he would have to refer to Greg Craig for guidance. He was also unable to explain how this new policy would make Americans “safer.”
In addition to the Guantanamo closing, remember that during the campaign, Barack Obama claimed that capturing Osama bin Laden was a must. Now it’s merely a “preference.” An interesting choice of words, no?
Anti-war protesters, ACLU lawyers and Europeans are most likely rejoicing – along with the terrorists themselves. Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pennsylvania), who, seeing the specter of more pork in the guise of a new maximum security prison in his district, got in on the action and said his district would be happy to take Gitmo prisoners. Has he asked his constituents what they think?
This gesture designed to placate the political left and America-bashers everywhere will have the “unintended consequence” of eroding America’s national security. Apparently it matters not that detainees are returning to terrorism upon release at an 11% recidivism rate, up from 7% less than a year ago.
Back in 2004, Andrew McCarthy wrote about the Gitmo quandary:
And what of Guantanamo Bay? These are enemy fighters captured on the battlefield. There is, it bears repeating, a war going on. We could have killed them. Instead, we took the lesser measure of capturing them. As the Defense Department has recently announced, over 10,000 people – enemy forces and their sympathizers – have been removed from theaters of combat in Afghanistan. They were not all shunted off to Gitmo. They were, instead, initially screened to determine whether they were actually enemy combatants, whether they posed a continuing threat to our forces, and whether interrogating them extensively would likely yield intelligence that could help defeat the enemy, save lives, and end hostilities more promptly. Of the roughly 10,000, less than eight percent, or a little under 800, were shipped to Gitmo, where they have been humanely held and interrogated.
Contrary to the bombast, the military does not have a great incentive to hold captives endlessly. Once their intelligence value is exhausted, detaining them is burdensome, and makes sense only insofar as they pose a mortal threat. As a result, of the original 800 Gitmo detainees, scores have already been released — to the point where we are now holding perhaps 650 prisoners, the ones believed to be most dangerous. And, as Newsweek reports this week, releasing many of these may have been a profound mistake — and one made with an eye toward appeasing critics who, we should know by now, will never be mollified as long as even one terrorist's exertions are being impeded. The released detainees are, predictably, rejoining the battle, taking up arms once again against America.
Since its inception, Gitmo opponents have been repeating ad nauseum that as long as Gitmo remained, America’s moral standing in the world would be mired in the muck. Where’s the outrage when our soldiers who are captured are mercilessly tortured and killed?
It seems that political expediency has replaced national security as a top priority in the Oval Office.
One final question: Will Americans have the opportunity to sue the government if Gitmo detainees harm us after their release?
Brought to you by the editors and research staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
