The Politics of Insanity: Releasing Gitmo POWS Back to Terrorism

By Bob Ellis on January 14th, 2009

 

Breakfast at Club Gitmo

Breakfast at Club Gitmo

While there is every indication that President-elect Barack Obama will close Club Gitmo, aka the terrorist POW camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,  we continue to see evidence that it has done us a service for national security and could continue to do so.

Though some prisoners have been released about 250 remain.  

In previous wars, enemy POWs remained imprisoned until the war was over.  This was done as a humane way to remove them as a threat; the alternative would be to shoot them.  To capture an enemy combatant and release him would be to ensure that you have to do the same work over again at a later date–undoubtedly after he has killed more of your countrymen.

It therefore makes sense that we should keep the terrorists and other enemy combatants captured in the War on Terrorism locked up until such time as terrorism is defeated, or terrorists throw down their arms and live peacefully with the rest of the world.  And if that takes years, well that’s up to their terrorist brothers, isn’t it?

But we don’t have to deal in the theoretical when it comes to releasing enemy combatants; we have existing, modern-day examples of why enemy combatants should be held, and why Club Gitmo serves a vital role in national security.

An article from Newsmax yesterday cites Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell that that 61 former POWs released appear to have returned to their terrorist activities.  He said 18 former detainees have been confirmed and 43 are suspected of “returning to the fight.”

Morrell also said the recidivism rate has gone up from 7% to 11% recently.  

Not surprising, since already the sissies in Washington D.C. have  already demonstrated a lack of resolve to deal decisively with threats to America.  

And with Barack Obama’s fondness for terrorists already well known,  as is his unwillingness to see a threat in anything smaller than the former Soviet Union, no doubt terrorists will only become bolder in the days to come. 

Terrorists at home and abroad have lauded Obama’s election; no doubt they would not welcome the election of someone they considered a serious threat to them. 

I literally shudder when I think of the ominous implications of what we did on November 4.  I see no reason not to believe we didn’t throw America out of they frying pan and into the fire.

May God have mercy on us; we will need it.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , ,

  • don
    bob

    perhaps you should have taken better notes in polysci. "Terrorists at home and abroad have lauded Obama’s election; no doubt they would not welcome the election of someone they considered a serious threat to them. "

    Radicals prefer to discredit and destroy moderates ( and therefore would not welcome their election) they seek a radicalization of political discourse by forcing case draconian repression. the islamic radicals would have preferred a hard right republican president for precisely this reason. moderates are far more dangerous to radicals that those that seek to destroy them by severe "crackdowns"

    despite your own attempts to paint them as mindless nihilists, the islamic terrorists are seeking a political solution and for the most part have rational objectives (they are willing to use murderous means and brutal thugs to achieve this goal) but to paint them as mindless nihilists only serves their goals.

    and by spreading the idea that terrorists love political moderates you are a tool of the islamic radicals.
  • Don, I think you mean "liberals," not "moderates." Let's be clear on that.

    Your argument might be valid...if there were not such tremendous evidence of Obama's proclivity for appeasement and actually fondness for many terrorist figures.

    When you couple the terrorists fondness for Obama with Obama's fondness for terrorists, the conclusion becomes very clear: they truly welcome an Obama administration because they will no longer have to deal with an administration that will hold them accountable and that will refuse to give in to their demands.

    The fact that you claim terrorists are seeking a "political solution" and have "rational objectives" reveals that you are either highly disingenuous or highly ignorant. Political solutions do not involve violence, especially the intentional killing of innocent civilians. Nor would any reasonable person consider the total annihilation of Israel a "rational objective."

    BTW, any chance you work for Hamas or Hezbollah?
  • don
    i wonder if you are capable of having a normal discussion without stooping to personal attacks. political means do not have to be peaceful. Clausewiz pointed out that war is the continuation of politics by other means. rational does not mean reasonable or acceptable, it means logical. logic does not imply a moral or ethnical objective. if we are going to deal with people who want to impose their will on us, we had better be prepared to figure out how they think. your points and your personal attack on me for attempting to question our understanding of this issue are not particularly helpful.
  • It's a legitimate question, Don, not a personal attack. If you think the total annihilation of Israel is a "rational objective," then I have to wonder how closely your sympathies with the terrorists lie.

    Every civilized nation recognizes that you do not deliberately target innocent civilians, including women and children. Yet that is exactly who the terrorists target.

    "How terrorists think" can be useful in determining how to defeat them, but beyond that, it's really irrelevant. As long as they are intent on targeting innocent civilians and annihilating the nation of Israel, they just have to be stopped. Period.

    Do you work for the incoming Obama Administration?
  • don
    bob

    asking questions does not imply approval, and imposing a litmus test on the one asking questions is in itself a form of intellectual terrorism. I could just as well "wonder" where your sympathies lie by suppressing open debate.

    for the record i do not work for or support hamas or any arab organization. i do not work for the obama administration. I do have a m.a in history and political geography.

    and it is completely relevant to know how to politically defeat your enemy . it is true that a whole lot of civilian leader have lost wars, but it is also true that very few generals have ever won a war that stayed "won" for very long by military means alone.

    to win a war you need the help of a lot of people beyond your own side. that's politics and it means making compromises.

    and yes civilized nations have deliberately targeted innocent civilians. Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo. The entire British nighttime bombing of Germany was based on the targeting of civilians. and i am not here making any moral judgment. ( I do think it was almost certainly required to bomb cities). was it moral? the act itself was not, the larger goal was.

    the islamic radicals understand these questions even if you want to pretend that they don't and to defeat them, will require a lot of political inflighting and a recognition that unconditional surrender and "stopped. Period" are slogans, sometimes useful, sometimes not.
  • The Dresden bombing killed a tremendous number of civilians, and was probably the least finest hour for the Allies. However, it was unlike the deliberate targeting of civilians which is SOP with terrorists. Dresden was an important military target because of its rail and communications facilities, in addition to its large number of factories. Destroying an enemy's warmaking capability is an unfortunate necessity of war, but one with recognized legitimacy.

    Back to the original point, it is clear that Obama intends to appease America's enemies, and it is equally clear that he is quite fond of a number of terrorists, presenting no credible opposition or threat to their goals. Therefore the only logical assumption for the motive of their praise for him is that they genuinely welcome him as someone who will aid, either directly or indirectly, their aims. Just as they despised President Bush because he was a resolute obstacle to their aims.

    To assume any differently is either profound disingenuousness or profound naivete.

    And what liberals love to dismiss as "slogans" are usually highly effective common-sense actions to most people.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »