Showing posts with label GITMO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GITMO. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 4

Obama, The Great Appeaser: No Bin Laden Photo

You would think that a Present who just publicly released a copy of his birth Certificate because a majority of the population was starting to doubt that he was born in the US, would have realized that some sort of proof of death would be required to prove to the world that the US had indeed found and killed Osama Bin Laden. But no:


In an interview with Steve Kroft for this Sunday's 60 Minutes, President Obama says he won't release post-mortem images of Osama Bin Laden taken to prove his death.

Video of the comments will appear on the CBS "Evening News" on Wednesday.

Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said Wednesday that the Obama administration should not release the gruesome postmortem images, saying it could complicate the job for American troops overseas.

"The risks of release outweigh the benefits," he said. "Conspiracy theorists around the world will just claim the photos are doctored anyway, and there is a real risk that releasing the photos will only serve to inflame public opinion in the Middle East." - CBS News
This is a perfect example of how the President and his keepers are fully onboard with the mis-belief that the solution to a violent Muslim world at war (to a certain degree) with the West is a progressive American President who makes note of their pain and is in tune with their sensitivities. So when Obama appears to be more Muslim than catholic, it really has nothing to do with his religious preference, which I suspect he is not very religious at all, but instead is all just an act to appear to Muslims to be sympathetic to their concerns, regardless of how asinine they may be. Another perfect example is how Obama made sure that bin laden's carcass was treated with respect. For God's sake why?

This is unfortunate, because it is a soft consoling hand that will do nothing to guide muslims from the extreme fringes that are at war with the US and the West in general. Treating our muslim enemies with respect, especially people who at best are war criminals, only dis-empowers those who are friends of the West and US. This is why we should put the photo out there. Osama bin Laden was a criminal. He was an enemy of all people on earth, especially Muslims. We killed him. Your welcome.

Personally, I think bin laden's corpse should have been cremated in the garbage incinerator of the USS NEW YORK and his ashes mixed with paint. Then paint his remains onto the deck as non-skid.

As far as the US not catching him alive, I covered this likelihood back in 2005 in 'Likely Unintended Effect of Fighting for Rights for Terrorists'. After all, the last thing President Obama needed during a reelection campaign would be Liberals demanding rights for this animal. And for sure some of the Liberals would eventually start openly supporting rights for Osama. In that respect, you could almost say that liberals were as responsible for the killing of Osama as the Navy SEALS were.

The tag line at the bottom of this blog says 'Appeasement is for suckers'. Unfortunately, our President seems to think that it is a magical tool. It just is one more piece of evidence of the lack of common sense our President is dealing with.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Thursday, June 11

Four GITMO Uighurs Now Enjoying Life In Bermuda!

This is unreal. See my earlier post of today here: China Called. They Want Their Terrorists Back...
WASHINGTON -- Four Uighur detainees from Guantanamo Bay have been sent to Bermuda, officials said Thursday. - Fox News
Given the statement noting that they have been 'resettled' tells me that these guys are now free to roam about the island. Nice for them. Maybe these guys can find work servicing the cruise ships as they call the port or maybe even find work at the island's airport. It should not be a problem given that the US has declared them harmless, right.

I wonder how long before one of these guys gets himself into trouble...

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

China Called. They Want Their Terrorists Back...

I have previously advocated that the US send the Chinese Uighurs that it holds in GITMO back to China. Now that the Government has found a home for them on Fantasy Island, the Chinese are demanding that they be sent back to China.
China has demanded the return of 17 Chinese Muslim Uighur detainees held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay.

America should "stop handing over terrorist suspects to any third country," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.

Palau, a former US Pacific territory which does not recognise China, has agreed to accept the ethnic Uighurs. - BBC
As I mentioned before (here), the last time I checked, China is a Full Member of the United Nations right up to holding a permanent Seat on the UN's Security Council. What happens to the Chinese Uighurs upon their return to China by the US is not our problem. If the Chinese decide to torture the hell out of them, then they would surely be in violation of their commitments to the UN. The issue should be taken up there if the Uighurs end up being mistreated upon their return. Sure it sucks to be them, but if China is really a problem, then they should be confronted about this at the UN. That is why it exists.

The news likes to point out that these Chinese detainees are not 'enemy combatants' and are not dangerous to the US. Problem is, they were not in Afghanistan attending a wedding. They were there getting terrorist training. Just because their target is not the US does not make them harmless. What if they were training to strike France? Would the US still call them not dangerous? China has declared them terrorists. Don't they have a right to get them back? They surely think so.
Beijing says Uighur insurgents are leading an Islamic separatist movement.

China says the 17 due to be sent from Guantanamo to Palau are members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which is on the United Nations list of terrorist groups.

"China urges the US to implement the UN Security Council's relevant resolutions and its international obligations on counter-terrorism," Mr Qin said. - BBC
If the US does anything with the Uighurs, they should use them as bargining chips, trading them to get the Chinese to turn the screws on North Korea. At any rate, they should go back to China. If China tortures them, it is only our and the UN's fault for not pushing human rights reform more strongly in the past.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Monday, May 25

The Terrorist Prisoner Not Mentioned in Obama's Speech

On Thursday President Obama made a speech on how to handle the terrorists the US is holding at GITMO, defending his goal of having the prison closed and moving some of the worst prisoners to prisons in the US. As part of his speech he mentioned a number of terrorists that the US is already holding in the US:
First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. The record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He was convicted in our courts and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prisons. Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo. - White House Transcript
This is all good, but it would be good to note that there is a special danger with handling prisoners who are willing to die for their cause. Take the case of a senior aide to Osama Bin Laden, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who is in a US Federal Prison:
The account of the attack on the guard, who was critically injured, came on the second day of a hearing in Federal District Court in Manhattan in which prosecutors are seeking to persuade a jury to impose the death penalty on a terrorist who bombed the American Embassy in Tanzania in 1998, killing 11 people.

The bomber, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, 27, was never charged in the stabbing of the guard, Louis Pepe, but prosecutors told the jury this week that Mr. Mohamed assisted his cellmate, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, in the attack, which they said was an attempt to take hostages and possibly free other terrorism suspects. The attack occurred on Nov. 1.

In eliciting the testimony about Officer Pepe's reference to giving ''them a fight,'' the prosecution appeared to be trying to show that both Mr. Salim and Mr. Mohamed were involved in the attack.

Officer Pepe suffered severe brain damage when a sharpened comb was plunged into his eye, and he is apparently unable to testify. - NY Times
So here are two terrorists in the custody of the Federal Prison System and while there almost killed one of the guards. They were convicted of killing hundreds in the African Embassy bombings. Interestingly enough, the President has decided to bring another terrorist from these same embassy attacks to try in the US. Just because, as the President notes, that no one has escaped from these Federal Prisons, does not mean that they cannot kill while inside prison.

Just to be clear, I have no problem trying these terrorists. My problem is that they want to try them like common criminals. Instead, they should be tried for crimes against humanity, just like the Nazis at the end of WWII.

P.S.
The speech also included this bit of Presidential 'wisdom':

Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

Look, these terrorists were attacking us well before GITMO was a prison. These terrorists were attacking the US before Bush was President. Terrorists struck a number of times while Clinton was President and he was loved by the rest of the world. (African Embassy bombings, USS COLE, WorlD Trade Center...) The way the US treats it's enemies had nothing to do with it. the reason there are some many to deal with is because we invaded their 'safe haven' and hunted them down across the globe.

Yes, some have used all sorts of excuses to join their cause. However, those who have been recruited are just looking for a reason to back up their behavior, not for a reason to act.

Well here is a secret for our President, if they want to hate you, they will find a reason to do so. Take this study of Terror threats against Finland:

We spoke at some length with the Imam about the worldviews of the Muslim community in Finland. He believed that the views could be divided into three groups.

Firstly there are the Finnish converts who, despite having become Muslim by faith, remain ‘Finnish’ in all other ways, including knowing their rights as citizens.

The second group are immigrants who have escaped bad situations in their countries of birth and as a result feel a sense of gratitude to the country that has given them refuge.

The third group, which he believes to be the majority amongst Muslim immigrants across Europe, feel that it was the activities and policies of ‘the West’ that led to them having to leave their homeland – be that for economic reasons or non-economic reasons such as war. As a result, they feel that they owe no gratitude to the countries where they now live.

This sentiment will only be amplified if they face prejudice or a lack of opportunities once resident in Europe. Importantly, ‘the West’ is seen as a bloc – in many ways a mirror image of how the West tends to view “the Muslim World” in an undifferentiated way. Therefore Finland’s history as a young nation with a past of being a colony itself, makes no difference to it being seen as part of ‘the West’.

Two anecdotal stories Imam Chehab recounted to us suggest that if an individual already has a certain mindset – in this case that of Finland as part of the ‘oppressive West’ – then they will retrospectively find the ‘evidence’ to support this.

The first case concerned a TV documentary shown some years ago about the birth of Israel. One of the elderly Zionists who was interviewed noted that there had been a small number of Finns who had fought with them. Rather than dismissing these as probable mercenaries, adventurers or crackpots, the Imam remembered this was discussed by some as evidence that Finland was supportive of Israel and not sympathetic to the Palestinians.

Another similar anecdote was about a member of the congregation who showed the Imam an article he had discovered in an obscure history journal noting that during the 11th century Crusades, there was a Finnish regiment amongst the Christian armies which was reputed to be particularly blood-thirsty. This again was taken as indicative of Finnish attitudes to Islam a millennium later! Although individually these stories might seem almost comical, they do suggest a particular attitude amongst a few individuals who see Finland as no different from any other Western country.

At the very least they show a lack of understanding of Finnish history and society, again suggesting a failure of integration. Of course it will be only a few individuals who would justify their feelings against Finland in these obscure historical terms, but a failure of integration leading to marginalisation, unemployment, poverty and lack of educational opportunities will provide much more contemporary grounds for some to wish ill on the country. - FIIA Report, Pages 64-65 (Originally posted here)

Given this, GITMO is the least of our problems. Especially considering that the terrorists will use GITMO against the US for generations to come. So we might as well get the benefit from it.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Wednesday, May 20

UN Report: GITMO Detainees Not Entitled to Protection of Geneva Conventions

Looking at the whole 'torture' debate that Congress is getting into now, I thought it good to post the below reminder of what I wrote back in 2006:
Speaking of the Geneva Convention. The UN issued a report in February titled "Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay." The press covered the report and it's calls for the US to close Gitmo. What the press seems to have missed 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 Geneva Conventions do not apply to these criminals. - June 2006
So, when it comes to those being held by the US in GITMO, the US has not and is not violating the prisoner's Geneva Convention protections, because they are not entitled to them. And even if the Convention applied, those caught were in violation of their responsibilities under it. (Not targeting civilians, uniform, etc...) President Bush, did however extend them treatment in line with the Conventions.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Friday, May 8

How bad can 'Waterboarding' be....

How bad can 'Waterboarding' be if you can't remember the details of the briefing you had on it?
The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered "EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah." EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

The issue of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it has become a matter of heated debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans have accused her of knowing for many years precisely the techniques CIA agents were using in interrogations, and only protesting the tactics when they became public and liberal antiwar activists protested. - Washington Post
Very interesting how every new revelation in this issue makes the Speaker of the House look like she is either lying or a person who does not pay attention to the confidential information that is being given to her or is incapable of properly dealing with the information she is being given.

Either way, she is not doing her job properly. The important issue here is whether or not she has been using this issue as a political 'whacking stick' against her political opponents, distorting her complacency in the matter. One thing that is becoming very clear is that she and many of her fellow Democrats really don't care one bit about the terrorists being held in GITMO. Their main concern at the moment appears to be making sure that they don't get stuck with the responsibility of dealing with GITMO.

--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Friday, March 27

Released GITMO Detainees Should Go Back To Their Own Country - To be Tortured or Not

Ah, the problem of what to do with GITMO detainees that the US does not want to hold anymore:
Some of the detainees, deemed non-threatening, may be released into the United States as free men, Blair confirmed.

That would happen when they can't be returned to their home countries, because the governments either won't take them or the U.S. fears they will be abused or tortured. That is the case with 17 Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), Chinese Muslim separatists who were cleared for release from the jail long ago. The U.S. can't find a country willing to take them, and it will not turn them over to China. - AP (Found via the Weekly Standard)
The last time I checked, China is a Full Member of the United Nations right up to holding a permanent Seat on the UN's Security Council. What happens to the Chinese Uighurs upon their return to China by the US is not our problem. If the Chinese decide to torture the hell out of them, then they would surely be in violation of their commitments to the UN. The issue should be taken up there if the Uighurs end up being mistreated upon their return. Sure it sucks to be them, but if China is really a problem, then they should be confronted about this at the UN. That is why it exists.

Really, not sending them back is not going to stop torture in China. Sending them back will force the world to confront them on this issue. Or maybe not. Maybe these guys get executed on their return and the world moves on. At least we won't have these suspected terrorists living amongst us, collecting welfare. Keep in mind that it was their actions that got them where they are now.
--------------------
Add to Google
--------------------

Saturday, February 23

ACLU - The Company You Keep - Update

When outside the US I had always assumed that the US Government was listening in, at least tracking where the call came from and where it was going as well as having a computer listen in on the conversation, provided that they didn't have more interesting calls to listen in at that moment. After all, the calls were coming across the border and I always understood that the Government had the right to search anything crossing the boarder, like your luggage, and mail, so why not phone calls as well. Here is a simple explanation of Custom's right to search:
Be aware that under U.S. law, CBP officers are authorized to examine luggage, cargo, and travelers. Under the search authority granted by the U.S. Congress, every person who crosses a U.S. border may be searched and questioned about their travel. To stop the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband into our country, your cooperation is appreciated.
Of course, after 9/11 the Government decided to carry out wiretapping of foreign calls in secret until it was outted by a seditious press to be doing exactly this. Their problem was not only were they taping conversations, but that they were doing it without first getting a warrant. Had the calls been taking place entirely in the US, then yes, a warrant would have been required, but in these cases either one or both parties to the phone conversation were outside the US.

The ACLU fearing (rightly so in my opinion) that their lawyers were 'victims' of this eavesdropping, because of their ongoing communication with suspected terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, sued the Government to stop the program. Back in 2006 I reasoned that since you have no right to privacy when crossing the border, then you shouldn't expect a right to privacy when communicating over it either.
So who gave these interest groups the illusion that communicating across the border is somehow sacred? Sure their communications within the US are protected. What about the Government on the other side of the conversation. Do they expect the Pakistani Government to respect their right to privacy? What about the Saudis? Listening to the news, you would think that those filing the lawsuits are somehow victims. Well they have to sound like victims in order to sue. But they have made a huge error portraying that the Government is spying on them.

The program concentrated on the communications of suspected terrorists and their associates. If the Government did obtain their phone or email details, then it was because they either contacted or were contacted by one of these people of interest. Sure, they might be dealing with these people in the course of their jobs. This does not let them off the hook. THEY chose to associate with these people. THEY chose to represent these people. People who were in the country ILLEGALLY. People who were fighting in Afghanistan in violation of the Geneva Convention, and are now detailed in Gitmo. People who are suspected of killing Americans. People who are going to be charged with crimes against the United States.

Those suing are claiming that they communicate with suspected terrorists. After all, this is who the Government is ‘spying’ on. - Jan 2006
Interestingly enough, the Supreme Court has just declined to hear this case, after a lower court decided that the ACLU couldn't prove that they had been harmed by the law. In order to prove that they were harmed by the law, they needed evidence that they were spied on, which they couldn't get without the case going ahead and the Government provided data to confirm their allegations. Of course, it would have been easier to prove their point had the Government gone and arrested some ACLU Lawyers as a result of the wiretapping, but that hasn't happened. (At least not yet)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.

"It's very disturbing that the president's actions will go unremarked upon by the court," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project. "In our view, it shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine the limits."

The Terrorist Surveillance Program no longer exists, although the administration has maintained it was legal.

The ACLU sued on behalf of itself, other lawyers, reporters and scholars, arguing that the program was illegal and that they had been forced to alter how they communicate with foreigners who were likely to have been targets of the wiretapping.

A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program. - AP

By their own admission, they are communicating with people that the Government is likely to be tracking. We already know that lawyers have assisted their terror clients in the past. So what is their problem? Maybe the Government wiretapping will allow the government to learn that their clients are innocent!

By the way, what is the American Civil Liberties Union doing representing people who are not Americans and are not living in the United States? This would seem to be outside their bounds. Aren't there any needy Americans who could use heir assistance?

Still unanswered in all this is the real possibility that the Government where the other end of the phone conversation is taking place is listening in on their conversations. That is where the real risk lies for them and their clients because some of those Governments have facilities that make GITMO look like a vacation resort.



Funny, despite all the commotion, nobody is in jail in the US because of what was heard during a foreign wiretap. This is much like the fake rage over waterboarding. All that hot air and it has only been used on three very evil people, and that was years ago. (Not including the clown below who was waterboarded by his fellow protesters.)




The Company You Keep - 18 Jan 06

Tuesday, July 3

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


Thursday, June 22

US Turns Jihad into One-Way Journey

We might not have caught or captured bin Laden yet, but one thing is for certain, he will never take a commercial airline flight again, open a bank account, go home to Saudi Arabia to visit relatives, or even come out of hiding without risking being captured or killed by the US. He will instead live out each day knowing that any moment might be his last and that every time someone comes to visit him, the chances are good that he will never see that person again because they also have a high probability of being captured or killed.

It was the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan that radicalized Muslims and gave birth to modern jihad. (Yet another thing to thank the Soviets for!)

Two concepts are central to the Islamist extremists’ worldview: Jihad – that the extremists take to mean holy war against disbelievers, and Takfir – the act of pronouncing other Muslims to be disbelievers and therefore making them into valid targets of jihad.

This ideology was turned into a global phenomenon through the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Islamists were oppressed in numerous Muslim states; marginalizing them from the political process and giving them no way to express their ideology. Denied the ability to act in their own states, many travelled to Afghanistan to take part in the jihad against the Soviets. Many Arab and Muslim states actively supported the jihad financially and politically, both to bolster their own Islamic credentials at home and as a way of allowing devout young men to act on their beliefs in a manner that did not threaten the security of their own states.

When the Soviet Union was defeated, numerous well trained and radicalised fighters, linked by their ideology, dispersed around the world forming the basis of the loosely connected ‘network of networks’ of terrorists we see today. – FIIA Report (PDF)

The jihad operations against the Soviets allowed islamic groups to setup funding and training operations and a terror infrastructure that the US would eventually face and is currently in the process of dismantling.

The operations against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan created experienced jihad veterans who recruited others and provided support for newcomers to jihad. Most of those involved in jihad could go away from the 'battlefield' and return home without much fear of repercussion from their home governments let alone from the Soviets. Some of these groups even received funding from the US, as assistance in kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Providing them with Stinger missiles gave them serious teeth and a way of bring down their armored helicopters, causing real problems for the invaders, which eventually led to their pullout of the country.

However, going on Jihad is a completely different commitment today than it was in the early 80’s. First there is a new enemy, the West in general, the United States specifically. The US was seen as an easy (soft) target when compared to the Ruthless Soviets. I am not exactly sure why, especially since the US managed to beat the Soviets, the Nazis and the Japanese in addition to putting up a bloody fight in Korea and Vietnam. Nonetheless, the US was seen as weak. The US’s pullout of Somalia contributed to this myth as did a lack or proper response to a number of terrorist attacks; the ’93 WTC bombing, the USS COLE bombing, and the African Embassy bombings.

One thing about the US is that the chances are good that you can blindside us once, but we do learn quickly. On September 11 the passengers of the first hijacked flights did not fight back against their captors as the common belief was that they would be taken as hostages and traded for something and that the safe way out of the situation was to cooperate with the terrorist's instructions. Once it was clear what they planned to do with the planes, the passengers of Flight 93 attempted to regain control of the plane despite personal risk because they knew that doing nothing was no longer an option. The plan (mostly) worked that one day but it will never work again. We are all that much smarter now.

In addition to the 19 hijackers, the 9/11 attacks cost the terrorists their safe haven and training camps in Afghanistan, lost their safe haven in most of Pakistan (Many of the high al-qaeda leaders have been captured there), Lost any assistance they had with Iraq, as well as lost the financial assistance of many 'non-profits' that were collecting money for their cause. In addition, once a person is know to take part in terrorist activities, they become wanted men, not only by the US, but also by most every country on the planet, including their own. Ever wonder why the wanted pictures of these terrorists look like passport pictures? Because they are obtained from their home countries. Travel is limited mostly overland making movement much more difficult.

The human cost to their operations today are higher than ever. You cannot reuse a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are trained for one ‘final’ attack. Luckily for them, a suicide bomber does not require much training and in some cases even their knowledge that they are a suicide bomber. At least one who lived to tell about it, said that he was ordered to move a truck and while driving it the truck just happened to explode. That is not exactly the best way to win against the US. Worse is that all of the experienced people within al-qaeda are being eliminated or captured creating a knowledge gap for those who remain to carry on the fight.

Manhunts in Asia, Africa and Europe have pushed most of the rest deep underground — finding refuge in wartorn Somalia or the jungles of the southern Philippines. While there are still recruits ready to take up al-Qaida's call to arms, analysts say the newcomers have fewer connections than the men they are replacing, less training and sparser resources. - Yahoo News

One of the experience leaders, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, met his end a short while ago. Some Liberals claimed that this would have no effect on the war on terror as someone will just take his place. What these detractors don't understand (but the terrorists do) is that by eliminating Zarqawi, the US is forcing someone to take his place. Most likely the person is not as experienced and needs to hope that he can learn fast enough to avoid getting killed or captured by those hunting him. Recent news suggests that at least two terrorists who were in line to replace Zarqawi have themselves been killed or captured. In the real world, people like to be promoted, but I suspect that 'promotions' in al-Qaeda are nothing more than a depressing event.

Terrorists cannot expect any celebration other than the one given by their relatives on the news of their death. A picture on a poster is hardly something worth fighting for, especially since their name will be forgotten almost immediately. That is provided that they don't end up rotting in Gitmo instead.
---

I have been thinking about this for a while and Day by Day Cartoon's (Homepage) for today forced me into getting this out:

Its funny because its so true.

The feared 'next generation' of Jihadis dead or on the run - Secular Blasphemy
Many in terrorists' 'next generation' dead - Yahoo News
The Finnish Institute of International Affairs
International Terrorism and Finland (PDF)

Islam was not Hijacked - FFI - 21 January 2006
Signs that Allah (God) is not on Your Side - FFI - 28 July 2005

Monday, November 28

Why the US holds detainees outside the US

At the end of World War II there were almost four hundred thousand German soldiers interned in POW camps in the US. A portion of the German’s captured by the allied forces were the responsibility of the US to hold until the conclusion of the war. To do this, troop ships were filled with prisoners as they were emptied of soldiers in Europe. After arrival in the US, they were put on trains for long trips to Middle America where their POW camps were located.

Housing prisoners of war in the US is nothing new, so why aren’t we housing prisoners of war from Afghanistan and Iraq in the US? Here are a couple of likely reasons why.

First, none of those being held meet the definition of a prisoner of war, other than some of the Iraqi Government Officials now on Trial. Most people are familiar with the existence of the Geneva Convention, but few actually understand the basic principles of it. Not only does the Convention have requirements on how prisoners are to be treated, but also have requirements on the behavior of “soldiers” in order to receive treatment in accordance with the Convention.

In addition to those caught physically fighting the US, there are also those who have been detained, accused of being support staff for terrorists. These people are as dangerous, if not more dangerous than the foot soldiers that they recruit and support. These people recruit those who conduct suicide attacks. They collect and then provide funding to terrorists as well as arrange for training, documentation and transportation. The only crime that many of these people have committed is limited to attending a training camp or even attempting to attend a training camp but failing to make it all the way to the camps in Afghanistan. Look at the “Portland Six” that were detained (and now jailed) for attempting to get to Afghanistan to fight the US.

Now the US has done the sensible thing by imprisoning these people whether caught on the battlefield, or caught as the result of finding information in a laptop in a computer in a terrorist hideout somewhere in the world. They are going after all the links in the terror chain and that is a problem because at some point the chain does cross into regular society and those links sometimes look just like yours and mine.

It seems that there are many out there who have no clue that there are people out there that would kill them if they could. Many terrorists are destined to only one act of violence, a suicide terrorist attack. Until that time, their main task is to train for their one event and to avoid capture.

For those in the supporting roles, their job is to accomplish their goals while blending in with the enemy, creating reasonable doubt just in case their true intentions are questioned or if they are ever detained or arrested. If any of these people are caught, the few pieces of incriminating evidence get lost in the static of neighbors commenting on what nice people they are, employers noting what good employees they are and nobody remembering any sign of radicalism. Then there are those who are not active in fighting but if asked will assist those who are. Finally there is the strange silence from the Muslim community in general. They are the ones best able to identify those who might be a threat, yet they don’t notify the authorities as if doing so might betray another Muslim. This thinking ignores the betrayal all the terror supporters are committing against other Muslims.

The game is not over if the terrorists happened to be caught either. This is where they call in their ‘useful idiots’ to gum up the Justice System.

A couple of terrorists have worked their way through the courts. John Walker Lindh The American Taliban, Richard Reid the ‘Shoe Bomber’, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who after two and a half years of turning his trial into a circus, finally got bored and admitted that he was indeed a terrorist and declared his allegiance to Osama Bin Laden. In Moussaoui’s case, the German Government has evidence against him but refuses to give it to the US Government unless they remove the threat of the death penalty for Moussaoui. The French apparently also gave information with the understanding (so they say) that he would not receive the death penalty as a result of their cooperation. This just proves that the terrorists were not stupid to choose Europe as a base of operations. Where would Richard Reid be now if his flight was headed to France from the US? Most likely in a French jail with a much shorter jail sentence. If they Europeans are so concerned about these people not facing the death penalty, then they should do a better job of preventing them from traveling to the US and arrest them before they can get set their feet on US soil.

Then there’s Jose Padilla, the ‘Dirty Bomber.’ Jose has been held for three years as an enemy combatant, despite being an American Citizen. Only now is he being charged with conspiracy to murder Americans. For some reason, he has not been charged with treason. He is also not being charged concerning the original reason why he was detained, which was planning to conduct a radiological ‘dirty bomb’ attack on the US.

He was not charged with that crime as the Government suspects that the evidence collected concerning that crime would not be admissible in court. However, that does not mean that he’s not guilty of that crime. It just illustrates the difficulty in fighting the war on terror both in the field and in the courts and how difficult it is to move suspects from one arena to the other.

Then we have Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a terrorist recently convicted of planning to kill President Bush and being a member of al-Qaeda. Ahmed had claimed that he was tortured into confessing, however, the jury did not believe that he was tortured, especially after viewing his confession tape.

It seems that there is a standard practice of the Muslim community to express outrage at the news of any Muslim being arrested on terror charges. Noting useful facts that it is ‘against Islam’ to kill civilians while ignoring the facts of why these people were detained in the first place.

Take a look at the website Cageprisoners.com. If you spend a couple minutes reading the stories of the prisoners, you will quickly realize that all these guys apparently ended up in Gitmo as the result of some sort of injustice. Some have no story, just a mailing address so that you can send them a postcard or whatever. I imagine that their stories don’t help their cause. At least David Hicks doesn’t hide much in his story. Then there are those that we are sure are terrorists who aren’t even mentioned, like Abdullah Mehsud (Noor Alam), who after his release from Gitmo went off and kidnapped two Chinese Engineers. Then there is Abdul Ghaffar who was released from Gitmo and later killed back in Afghanistan. His summary in Cage prisoners only mentions that he was “He was released and later killed”. So at least some of those released from Gitmo were terrorists. Unfortunately, this was only proven after their release through their future actions.

One of the most amazing episodes of the London subway bombing involved the capture of one of the bombers, Ramzi Mohammed. There the man was, standing in his underwear yelling out that he has rights. You can bet that there is no shortage of people that will ensure that the UK does not infringe on his rights. This is kind of silly since he had planned on blowing his rights all over the inside of a subway car.

Ramzi is a perfect example of how the terrorists will demand that ‘we’ play by our rules as they use our rules against us. Ramzi Mohammed managed to get into a position using his right to privacy where he could have killed many people. Unfortunately for him, his backpack didn’t explode. He just happened to be lucky enough that a quick-acting policeman didn’t have the opportunity to gun him down on the spot. Sure, he is not in the news at the moment, but give the moonbats some time. They will warm up to him. After all, if the leader of the crips can be reformed, why shouldn’t this guy be given another chance.

Unfortunately for other Muslims, the UK is now deporting people that they no longer want in their country, including those with the weakest of links to any terror entities. But enter the rights groups who claim that many of these people cannot be returned to their home countries because they are wanted there and those countries might not respect their human rights, forcing them to flee to the UK in the first place. These groups also sue to ensure that these deportees without a destination are not detained either, in an attempt to leave the person’s status as before, which does nothing to reduce the UK risk of another terror attack.

In the aftermath of the first London subway bombing, the Muslim community went into autopilot denying that the Muslims identified could not have been involved. A website even explains how these guys were ‘duped’ into carrying the explosives. (How the Government Staged the London Bombings in Ten Easy Steps) Too bad for them at least one of the terrorists left a video claiming responsibility for the attack. The reaction from the Muslim community was one of utter shock. That comes from living in utter denial. At least there is the fact that terrorist attacks did occur. Now just imagine if we had arrested Mohamed Atta on September first? At what point does a person become an imminent threat?

Atta’s lawyer would surely claim something like this:

There’s no evidence that terrorism was contemplated or being planned by any particular person at any particular time or in any particular place.”

Then there would be the Muslim Community that would express outrage as well as the usual crowd of sympathizers including members of the press that would claim that he and those arrested with him were singled out because they were Muslims.

Then there would also be cries of persecution and claims that there was no proof that Mr. Atta had done anything wrong and that all of his activities have more plausible, non-threatening alternative explanations. After all, most of these people are nobodies. There is nothing special about them and they live lives almost exactly like hundreds of thousands of people like them (with minor differences.) Their greatest asset to those that wish us harm is that a ‘nobody’ can kill much more effectively than a known criminal. After all the only real evidence might just be what is locked inside their brains.

So what happens once we catch these terrorists?

Take a look at what is going on in the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, Gitmo. There is a never-ending stream of visitors from Congress, the International Red Cross and lawyers representing those who are held there. Then you also have those demanding to get access, such as the investigators from the UN and EU. It is not good enough to just be allowed to visit the prison; they are also demanding to be able to talk to the prisoners, in private.

As one UN investigator stated, the US MUST be hiding something at GITMO because they will not permit them to talk to the Prisoners in private. But he forgets to mention that the US already permits the International Red Cross to talk to prisoners in private. This is despite the fact that they have leaked information to the press in violation of their rules that permit these visits in the first place. (Strange that the UN has no interest in visiting the rest of Cuba to talk to Cuba’s prisoners, in private.)

The International Red Cross, IRC, acts as observers when it comes to Prisoners of War. There are no POWS in Gitmo. But the US is granting them access anyway to show that they are treating them in line with the Geneva Conventions. Of course the IRC does not like what is going and they are pushing to have these criminals granted full rights under the Geneva Convention even though al-Qaeda violates the rules of war by targeting civilians. Did they point out to the prisoners that they broke the rules of the Geneva Convention and that the US has no requirement to treat them as they are currently? I suspect not. Lets not forget that they have also targeted the UN, as was done in Iraq.

Now these are the 500 worst people that the US has found other than the really big fish that the US has confined in unknown locations around the world. These big fish are the ones who have declared jihad against the US. They are the ones who issue orders for their followers. They collect and distribute funds and hand out missions and targets. There is very good reason to keep their locations unknown and even in some cases prevent or delay news of their capture. Does the US get any slack in detaining these criminals? Not lately as the European Union has been creating such a stink about the possibility of secret CIA prisons somewhere in the EU. No wonder the US is acting like it has no friends in the war on terror. Look at how our friends are acting. Perhaps if the US got some cooperation, then its actions could be a little less extreme. It is teaching the US a lesson though, that perhaps Guantanamo is not such a bad place after all, compared to hiding them somewhere else. At least there you can control the Lawyers, plane spotters, International Officials, and the whole mess that goes with it. Right now, I am waiting for the first pictures to be published of these secret prisons as well as a location so that I can check it out in Google.
ACLU to Sue the CIA - Stop the ACLU

Saturday, November 26

Likely Unintended Effect of Fighting for Rights for Terrorists

The International Red Cross, the UN, the EU, Amnesty International, the ACLU, and the American anti-war-left all contribute to making the detention of enemy combatants a no-win situation for the US Government.

These groups are demanding due process and rights for those that do not deserve them, other than documenting that they are enemy combatants or terrorists. They also act as mouthpieces to pass on propaganda and false claims of torture by the US. (as opposed to isolated cases of torture)

This 'harassment' by the rights groups might actually create a situation where the US will simply prefer to neutralize terror suspects, given an option.

Since these organizations are making life difficult for the US to capture and hold terror suspects, it becomes much easier to just kill them off. For example:

A building is identified as a terrorist safe house. While it would make sense to capture those inside for questioning, despite a known danger that those inside, known to be armed will fight back, the Government might opt to instead have an air strike destroy the building. This will avoid the issue of dealing with the hassle of detaining 20-plus ‘insurgents’ for the opportunity to interrogate them. They will still leave behind a good deal of material in the rubble for intelligence to review.

Once the attack is over, no amount of bickering from the normal crowd will change anything. There cannot be any allegations of torture. No demands from lawyers to set them free. No concern that the persons neutralized will be able to escape or continue their war against the US if released, as has been proved by a number of released Gitmo detainees. there will also be no need to hunt around for secret CIA Prisons as there will not be a need for them.

The few High Profile detainees we can lockup in Federal Prison as illegal combatants. For the lesser terrorists that surrender, we can hopefully return them to their own countries to face justice. Many are wanted by their own Governments and face a much harsher fate than the US can dish out.

As a bonus, word will spread that the US can get them anywhere and that nowhere is safe.

Ever see the night vision video where a building is being watched? You know the one, where a couple of people walk out and look around and are then cut down by a hail of bullets before a cannon shot takes out the building. We need more of that.

Confusion lingers over Australian anti-terror laws - FT
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons – Washington Post
Update: 5 December 2005
When a well placed bullet is better - Macsmind (Great Blog!)