If we Close Gitmo, How About Offering it to the Brits

You have to wonder. The US is radical islam's number one target, yet it is the UK that seems to be swamped with islamic terrorists. Maybe part of the reason that they are having such a problem and we are not is because these terrorists are afraid of being caught by the US.

We can partly thank this terrorist fear of the US on our prison facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, GITMO, along with allegations of torture of US terrorist detainees. Simply put, Gitmo scares them.

Although, for some reason, Gitmo just happens to scare everyone. Europe has exerted no end of energy to investigate whether the US secretly held terror prisoners in Europe as well as hunting down suspected CIA Agents operating in Europe, to the point of filing charges against some. Yet the terrorists the CIA was tracking continue to get a free pass. Europe's 'policy' of going soft on terrorists so as not to piss them off does extent to the US which is sad, since we have no plans of blowing up their populations. It does however, give terrorists some freedom to move about in planning the next terrorist attack.

In addition to not attacking Europe, the US has also failed to kill anybody using torture at Gitmo. Just to give a little perspective, more African migrants are going to drown in the Mediterranean sea this year trying to get to Europe while the EU does nothing to save them than there are prisoners in Gitmo. Yet there is this idiotic push to close a prison that is needed to hold those who wish to kill us. That is an often overlooked point. And yes, they want to kill us.

To make matters worse, the US prison system is not suitable to hold large numbers of suicidal terrorists. At the very least, you don't put prisoners of war in prison with criminals. You put them in a prison camp, like Gitmo. Those on the left fighting to earn these criminals prisoner of war rights should realize that being labeled as such will exclude them from the court system, eventually as well as from US jails. You just can't have it both ways.

Historically, illegal combatants, like those at Gitmo, were traditionally just shot or hung. (Like spies) Containing them in a camp is a new novel idea. After all, as long as they are breathing, a terrorist group can demand their release or else. This is the suspected way that terrorist Mohammed Ali Hammadi gained his freedom:

There has been speculation that his parole was granted as part of a covert prisoner swap, in exchange for the release of Susanne Osthoff. Taken hostage in Iraq a month prior, Osthoff was released the week of Hammadi's parole. - Wiki

If the US does shut Gitmo, as appears ever so likely, the US will surely arrange alternative arrangements to hold them overseas instead of giving them access to the US legal system. It will also allow the US to remove themselves from being in control of their detention. Let the liberal lawyers appeal detention orders in some of these other countries.

No matter what happens, there is a decreasing need for Gitmo nowadays since the military is now more likely to kill than capture suspected terrorists as discussed here.

Since we will not be needing Gitmo, perhaps we should offer it to the Brits. They have been tracking thousands of suspected terrorists within their own country. Recent events suggest that they should probably detain some of them. It makes no sense to have suspected and known enemies residing inside your country. Lets face it, the UK is hardly going to increase their terror risk by placing some of their biggest threasts in a Gitmo-type facility.

-------------------------------

Notes:

Before you start talking about rights for those held in Gitmo, including rights under the Geneva Convention, keep in mind that the UN issued a report in February 2006 titled "Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay." The press covered the report and it's calls for the US to close Gitmo. What the news organizations seem to have missed, or ignored, was this important note by the Chairperson of the working group that made the report:

The Chairperson of the Working Group and the Special Rapporteur note that, while United States Armed Forces continue to be engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan as well as in other countries, they are not currently engaged in an international armed conflict between two Parties to the Third (POWs) and Fourth (civilians) Geneva Conventions. (Pages 13-14 of the report)

In other words, the UN states that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to these criminals.

Don't be fooled either by those who claim that these radicals have kidnapped Islam. That is a lie. Islam has not been kidnapped.


Previous Anti-Jihad Posts:
British Legal System straining under Ever-Growing List of Terror Cases - 11 Aug 2006

Europe, Unprepared - 4 Feb 2006

Islam was not Hijacked - 21 Jan 2006

Why the US holds detainees outside the US - 28 Nov 2005

Likely Unintended Effect of Fighting for Rights for Terrorists - 26 Nov 2005

US Turns Jihad into One-Way Journey - 22 June 2006

Human Rights Groups Kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - 8 June 2006

England Flag Banned from UK Prisons as Racist - 4 Oct 2005