American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.
Two al Qaeda Leaders Behind Northwest Flight 253 Terror Plot Were Released by U.S.
Posted in * Economics, Politics, Terrorism
You know, maybe this idea of keeping crazed war criminals locked up at the end of Cuba wasn’t such a bad idea after all.
Maybe it soneone had appreciated their art, this wouldn’t have happened – just as Hitler wasn’t given proper esteem for his art either. 😉
Just what kind of “art” does a Salafist do anyway? Isn’t is prescribed by the Quran?
A historical analogue.
Dateline: 1944
Two Japanese Kamikaze pilots whose planes had suffered engine trouble enroute to their “Divine Wind” targets were rescued by submarine, the USS Hardhead (SS-365).
After confinement in the brig of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise for a period of two months, it was determined by a political decision at the White House by the President’s staff that the two Kamikaze pilots were no longer a threat to Allied Forces and they were repatriated to Japan by being transferred by another US submarine to a Japanese fishing boat off the coast of Japan.
Update: Two Kamikiaze planes struck the US Fleet off of Okinawa and did severe damage to two ships at the cost of many US lives. When the bodies of the two Japanese airmen were recovered from the wreckage of the Kamikaze planes, it was discovered that they were the same two pilots who had been considered rehabilitated and returned to the Japanese Government via the submarine transfer to the fishing boats.
We are experimenting with a “catch and release” program. It seems to work well with trout.
Reply to #5.
“Catch and release” may work with fish, but would it work with rabid skunks and foxes?
This is sickening.
I wonder how the folks on Northwest Flight 253 felt about GITMO incarcerations before their recent unpleasant experience and how they feel about it now. The clamor for releasing GITMO detainees seems to ring a bit more hollow now…it seems to have lost some of its “moral high groundâ€, to me.
The absurdity of “art rehabilitation†is striking. The concept of “rehabilitation†for terrorists is beyond striking…it is insane.
These folks are willing to strap explosives on their own bodies and detonate them in an effort to cause maximum political damage to their enemies through causing the maximum carnage possible. The more sickening the death and destruction they manage, the better for their cause. Until the liberal mindset grasps that there is no rehabilitation for participants in this particular type of warfare activity, we will all remain in mortal peril…even the Muslims among us, for they would be acceptable collateral damage to these Jihadists.
It is true that these two were released under the watch of the Bush Administration, yet the congress was then controlled by the Democrats and the News Media (propagandists and 5th columnists) had been keeping up a steady drumbeat for the release of GITMO detainees for several years by then. I suspect that the Bush administration bowed to the pressures being exerted against them and their resolve crumbled. It speaks poorly of both sides that this happened.
Now, there are new regulations to keep passengers in their seats…and they will help by? If passengers had not left their seats and subdued the terrorist, the outcome may have been much more tragic. They are also doing the “naked scans†now. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the end of sanity and I fear that it will be a bumpy ride from here on out.
Votes count. This is what a lot of you voted for when you went into the poll booth in November 2008. Suck it up, because there is surely a lot more of this nonsense to come.
In principle, it is still right to release prisoners if you aren’t going to offer them a trial.
If you also want to make person angry, throw them in a brig for 7 years. It’s probably a good way to make someone infuriated.
Blaming a “congress” or the “media” for the administration’s releasing prisoners is one way to keep one’s belief’s “intact.”
That said, just like we were fortunate to have the shoebomber fail, we’re lucky that the underwear bomber failed. Perhaps if the TSA had a person in charge and was unionized, there would have been someone directly accountable and a staff that was skilled.
😉
yes, John, the success and unblemished product quality at General Motors proves your point about unions.
There is a person in charge at TSA, just not Pres. Obama’s appointment. And the problem seems to be more at the State Dept first.
[blockquote]I suspect that the Bush administration bowed to the pressures being exerted against them and their resolve crumbled. It speaks poorly of both sides that this happened.[/blockquote]
No, it speaks badly of only one side. The drumbeat about GITMO came not from liberals but from people who believe, as did the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, that all people have inalienable rights and that people who are locked away by governments must be charged and tried.
There were no laws passed by Congress demanding release. In fact, Congress did nothing but continue to pass laws stripping Americans of more and more liberties in the name of national defense.
There was no drumbeat for release. The drumbeat was for trials. It was the Bush Administration that chose to forgo trials and release these people back to their native country.
Until the Neocon mindset grasps that we cannot save ourselves by abandoning who we are and what we believe, we must all live in fear that one night we will awaken to a jackbooted foot kicking in our door and being dragged off to prison to be held until our president determines its an appropriate time for us to be released or perhaps disappear.
Or, John Wilkins, throw them in a brig for the rest of their natural lives, their being unlawful combatants and not “criminals” and, therefore, not entitled to any constitutional (or any other kind of) protections whatsoever. Then, it won’t matter how “angry” or “infuriated” they get – not that I’m all broken up over the emotional state of the poor would-be mass-murdering darlings, anyway.
Terrorists shouldn’t be afforded any of the protections of soldiers at war or civil law. They should be shot out of hand. Same goes for partizans of all stripes. Wars are legitimately fought by the militaries of states. Others who take part in the fighting deserve none of the protections afforded either civilians or soldiers. And I’m not overly concerned what international agreements say on the matter.
[blockquote]throw them in a brig for the rest of their natural lives…not that I’m all broken up over the emotional state of the poor would-be mass-murdering darlings, anyway.[/blockquote][blockquote]They should be shot out of hand. Others who take part in the fighting deserve none of the protections afforded either civilians or soldiers.[/blockquote]
Wow, I can totally imagine Jesus saying that. [/sarcasm]
12, you confuse war with criminal activity. A POW can be held for the duration. In addition these people are illegal combatants, they are not civil criminals.
#16,
They are not “illegal comabtants”, merely “undocumented combatants”.
Scott K #15, as to the remark of mine upon which you commented, I’ll concede that it’s unclear how we are to behave, in the real world, toward those who would love to, fantasize about, murdering us. If the reason for doing so is because we’re followers of Christ, then one could argue that the experience of the martyrs is that we should “turn the other cheek” and be slaughtered. I admit – I’m not there, as long as we have a security apparatus to prevent it. If you’re willing to put yourself and your family forward to be cut down, then, I guess, God bless you. I have no doubt you’re a better Christian than I.
On the other hand, let’s not pretend the psalmist doesn’t pray that God will “break the teeth of the sinners” or that many of the saints, through their trials, have caused their tormenters to be, say, blinded or killed (as Tradition has received it), or, even, that Jesus didn’t tell the Seventy to shake the dust off their feet against those who would not receive the Word – quite possibly, to their damnation.
Thank you for the criticism, which surely has plenty of merit. On the other hand, we should learn all of the Church’s teachings, not only the half we like.
Actually Scott K,
Jesus had a lot to say about evil and hell as well.
We have a duty to protect this country. They are the basest of enemies and do not deserve constitutional protections.
In 1776 there was no United States, no constitution, yet we declared our independence from the Crown, asserted we, and all men, had inalienable rights granted by god, and went to war to defend those rights. If we no longer believe that then something basic has changed in who we are.
The question is not whether murderers and terrorist deserve death, but who gets to decide who is a terrorist and who deserves death. How do we know all those at GITMO were terrorist or “illegal combatants”? How do we know some innocent was not pulled from the streets of Iraq and deposited in GITMO? For that matter how do we know some political enemy of the president was not pulled from his home and deposited in GITMO? The answer is we do not know unless we afford each person a trial. A system of justice is a large part of what separates us from the terrorists.
Mitchell – the Red Cross has been allowed in Gitmo, and the military tribunals that were put in place have been working well, with legal representation for the accused. Our constitution is for citizens of the U.S. – if it weren’t, we would have to have open immigration, etc. Other countries have other laws, are you saying our constitution preempts those countries’ laws? So the U.S. Constitution is the law of the world? A military tribunal is what is appropriate for those picked up as enemy combatants.
You may recall That during WW!! we apprehended Nazi spies that landed on Long Island. They were tried in a secret trial and executed. Works for me. I would paint them with pig blood
just to p**s off the ACLU.
I am sorry to hear so many Americans in this thread who seem to have so little regard for the rule of law, whether for due process, fair trial, habeus corpus or any of the other aspects which are the mark of a civilised society. When you go down this route, you lose the moral high ground, something for which the US was and is held in high regard for.
And the effect of this? You lose the argument when dealing with nations like Iran or China, for they just say why should we listen to you on the subject of human rights, democracy, torture, the rule of law, an independent judiciary or whatever – just look at yourselves. Moreover, in doing so you undermine those working for freedom in those countries, for who then shall they hold up to their rulers as an example?
We in Britain are no strangers to this issue. In Northern Ireland in the ’70’s things were done which seemed expedient, perhaps even necessary at the time. What saved us is we had to take a good hard look at ourselves and say, is this what we are about? Is this the sort of country we wish to become, a country for which our grandparents fought so hard to keep free from tyranny, now on the slippery slope to becoming just like the countries who wished to take us over.
Common sense tells us we must find a way to imprison or execute people who will not rest until they’ve murdered as many Americans as they can. We have to make it a priority to find a lawful, constitutional way to make this happen. The only way it’s going to happen is if we have the political will to make it happen. And it’s only sustainable if we get real–not trumped up or exaggerated–and credible information about the threat. The problem is compounded in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where captured terrorists or insurgents are often turned over to local authorities only to be summarily released so they can continue their evil deeds. (It’s my understanding that this is mostly what happens to pirates, since nobody can agree on jurisdiction for a trial and of course repatriating them to the place that spawned them is only going to encourage them to try again.) This gamesmanship in the theater of war probably has the unintended consequence of providing incentive to kill them rather than capture them. Those whose lives are on the line can hardly be blamed for responding this way because for them, this is not a tea parlor debate, it’s a life-and-death struggle with a razor-thin margin for error. But, no matter how hard we work at it, we will probably never find a way eliminate all risk. Because to do that, we would have to become as ruthless as “they” are. I don’t think that’s the way we want to live. And our politicians have to be honest about this, too, rather than act as though it is their solemn god-like responsibility to protect us from any possible harm. Perhaps that’s part of the reason people are frustrated when we allocate disproportionate resources to security and then realize we can’t stop a man with a bomb in his underpants.
To clarify my previous comment, I do not advocate turning the other cheek. I do, however, insist that even the basest criminals (terrorists or otherwise) should receive due process. And not for their benefit, but for ours.
There is a big difference between unlawful combatants (men and women who do not follow the rules of War).
Mitchell – in 1776, our army wore uniforms and fought according to the proscribed rules of war in the day (normally). Even our militia had some distinguishing marks and had men under the command of officers (commissioned and non-commissioned). These men do not operate under any government and use civilians both as targets and as shields. I would gladly release them from Gitmo – feet first!
Terrorism can either be handled as a law enforcement operation or as a military one. For home grown terrorist groups (such as Earth First or some members of PETA) that get no funding or suppor from foreign nationals or countries, then Law Enforcement is probably the best alternative.
However, for terrorism that is conceived and supported from foreign countries or foreign nationals (such as we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and Yemen and parts of Pakistan), then the rules of war should be followed. Combatants captured during these struggles should either be treated as Prisoners of War (if they meet that definition) or as spys. Both can be held until the end of the war and repratriated after the cesation of holstilities.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I am glad to see this discussion turned from the tired finger-pointing type of thing we see so often. “We” as Americans have a problem, and “we” need to find solutions. I find it a great pity that the military tribunal process which Congress approved is not being carried through in many cases. This was the “due process” which Pageantmaster and many, many other people advocate, and it should be implemented.
As to airline security, we need to get over our squeamishness about “profiling” and aggressively pursue identifying potentially dangerous fliers and keeping them off planes. I have personal friends who are young Muslim men. They will be scrutinized and searched, and I am sorry for their inconvenience, but neither they nor anyone else deserve to be blown out of the sky. Huge numbers of Muslims worldwide are being killed by their co-religious extremists, far more than the numbers of Westerners dying. Worldwide, we need to stop tiptoeing around the problem. There is a difference between ordinary Muslims and extremists, as this bomber’s father knew. To his credit, he made sincere efforts to alert us to the danger posed by his son.
26, or as in the case of the Battle of the Bulge, Germans in American uniforms, were executed as spys. War is not law enforcement writ large. Military tribunals are the appropriate means to sort this out.
Heh – Jimmy DuPre. Perhaps the management and the designers of GM cars had absolutely NOTHING to do with their mediocrity. It was ALL the union’s fault. I guess I could buy that in a different universe.
A couple quick points. First, it’s probably incorrect to think any state can keep us perfectly safe. However, states might try to minimize blowback.
Second, there is a little tit-for-tat going on. Al Qaeda remarked they were responding to a particular attack by the US in Yemen. Although in my dreams i’d love them to be more Christian about it, I suspect that as we hit them, they’d love to hit us harder. I don’t support their urge for retaliation, but I don’t think this is particularly unusual. I know of Americans who wanted to nuke the entire Middle east after 9/11.
Practically speaking, our willingness not to adhere to any rule of law is commonly used among Muslim terrorists to justify their own cruelty. There is a direct correlation. As we get meaner, so do they. And then we act all surprised.
“Practically speaking, our willingness not to adhere to any rule of law is commonly used among Muslim terrorists to justify their own cruelty. There is a direct correlation. As we get meaner, so do they. And then we act all surprised.”
This is nonsense. you couldn’t move for lawyers. The prisoners in Gitmo got fat with all the food they were given. They had Red Cross visits and wall to wall Qurans.
& when they were released, they went back to killing.
The clamor for trials was based on the false notion that we were dealing with ordinary criminality. & under the jury system and rules of evidence and confidentiality of sources, many would never have been convicted. Watch what happens with KSM.
RE: “Practically speaking, our willingness not to adhere to any rule of law is commonly used among Muslim terrorists to justify their own cruelty.”
We do adhere to the rule of law. And so do the Muslim terrorists .. . it’s just that . . . they adhere to their laws, and we to ours.
The differences in those laws are rather . . . stark and compelling, as are the differences in the religions.
#29 says “practically speaking, our willingness not to adhere to any rule of law is commonly used among Muslim terrorists to justify their own cruelty. There is a direct correlation. As we get meaner, so do they. And then we act all surprised.”
First part of this statement is both a non sequitur and blatantly false. It’s our blind adherence to rule of law that has produced the problem being discussed here, so where this thought came from, it’s hard to fathom. Second part of the statement “there is a direct correlation,” is pure speculation. Can this be supported by any evidence? Third part of the statement, “as we get meaner, etc.” implies that the enemy is merely reacting to our actions, categorized as “mean.” This actually shows both a lack of respect and a lack of understanding of the enemy’s goals. They would like for us to believe what the writer suggests, but those who have been directly exposed to them know that they have bigger goals than just to right the perceived wrongs of Americans. We are only a stepping stone, sir. Don’t kid yourself. And if we have to wait for them to see the light and become as tolerant as us so we can all just get along, there’s a rather indefinite wait ahead.
[blockquote]Practically speaking, our willingness not to adhere to any rule of law is commonly used among Muslim terrorists to justify their own cruelty. There is a direct correlation. As we get meaner, so do they.[/blockquote]
I don’t remember us beheading any prisoners or strapping explosives to anyone and deliberately detonating them in crowded market places filled with innocents. Did I miss something or is the quote just a product of the lunatic left?
I’m glad we don’t have suicide bombers. I’m glad, instead, we have drones who sometimes miss their targets.
I’m not interested in defending Al-Qaeda. I’m merely stating that it’s not merely a feeling of wanting to hunt Americans because it’s sporty and a delightful thing to do for religion’s sake, but because they believe we’ve got it in for them. Granted our killing of civilians is all done with charity and to protect ourselves, and it’s the state and not individuals, and our killing of civilians are “accidental” but I suspect that doesn’t matter to the families involved or to Al-Qaeda.
We do find it easy to excuse the civilians we do kill, because, after all, we’re at war. We offer a few apologies, perhaps, and avoid responsibility, implicitly blaming them for being so murderous, without looking at the log in our own eye. Convenient, perhaps.
I don’t think it’s the same. But it’s another thing to pretend our own hands are bloodless. It seems better, and more Christian, to recognize that we are also sinners in this, and go forward hoping in God’s mercy rather than an imperial triumphalism.
Although I do hope Obama will succeed in defending the enemies of the US. As we all do.
🙂
#34 John Wilkins
Allied forces in the Middle East, both US and UK, as well as those of other countries go to considerable lengths and sometimes at considerable risk to themselves to avoid civilian casualties, as well as fighting to keep the civilians free from oppressive and cynical Al Qu’ada insurgents and extreme oppressive Taliban and Iranian backed elements, many of whom hail from rich foreign countries including the UK and Saudi Arabia.
I would ask you to reflect again on what is a pretty disgraceful and cynical comment from you.