REAL STORIES
BY REAL PEOPLE Search
Wednesday, October 18, 2017

What Price Security?

It will take another 9/11 to reveal the mistake of closing Guantanamo.

 

Unlike many conservatives, I was hoping to give President Barack Obama an honest chance.  I really wanted to see how he was going to operate before I started in on him.  In fact, I had already prepared a column in which I was actually saying something nice about him.  But before I could finalize the column and get it submitted, I was forced to change my column.  In other words, “a funny thing happened on the way to my computer.”

On the morning of Obama’s second full day in the Oval Office, he bone-headed a pretty important decision – he signed an executive order to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Of course, that is no surprise because the closing of Guantanamo was one of his campaign promises.  He was elected by left-leaning liberals because he specifically said, “I will close Gitmo.”  Not even Hillary dared approach that topic.

But what makes that decision such a bone-head move is that it was made hastily and not thought through.  When Fox News’ Major Garrett asked Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs what did the Obama Administration plan to do with the more than 200 enemy combatants currently incarcerated in the military prison, Gibbs stumbled over his words.  He suddenly realized that no one had bothered to consider that question.

So what is to become of those 200+ enemy combatants, especially al-Maliki – the man who conceived of the 9/11 attacks?  Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has already made it known that those held at Guantanamo are not welcome at the Fort Leavenworth military prison in Leavenworth, Kansas.  Perhaps Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer would consider reopening Alcatraz Island?  That would certainly increase tourism in the San Francisco area.  Even Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi might favor that plan.

Military intelligence reports that 18 of the already released enemy combatants from Guantanamo have returned to their terrorist roots.  It took 19 terrorists to carry out the 9/11 attacks in the first place.  Adding the 200+ to those already released 18 could effect some serious carnage upon America – something I’d rather not think about.

President Obama – two words that cause me to spit every time I have to say them – and the rest of the liberal left are still partying like it is September 10, 2001.  Liberals have never come to grips with the idea that we were really attacked.  Their selective amnesia toward 9/11 is spit in the face of those who lost loved ones that morning.  That they are now in control of the White House and both houses of Congress is an extremely dangerous state of affairs.  Another attack on American soil in which many thousands of innocent Americans will die is not a matter of “if”, it is a matter of “when.”

I am no prophet, however, I know how to read signs.  In 1999, while Bill Clinton was still president, I first encountered Osama bin Laden while reading about world events.  I read of his pure evil hatred for America  and his involvement in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.  It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see this man was hell-bent on damaging America.  As election 2000 dragged on, I penned a letter to then Vice-President Al Gore asking him to do the right thing and concede the election.  To me it was clear that he had lost and that the lawsuits were simply delaying the inevitable.  In my letter I mentioned to Mr. Gore that “America had more important things to worry about than recounting votes ad infinitum”.  I mentioned to him that one of America’s top priorities should be this man bin Laden and finding him before people really get hurt.  Little did I know how right I was.  Imagine my shock when I found a copy of that letter two years after 9/11.  Had I had an inkling of what was to come, I would have worded that letter much stronger than I did.

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world with people who are more interested in killing innocent Americans than they are talking about peace.  To them peace is American cities burning in ruins, American people lying dead in the streets and those who are not dead are either being tortured in prisons or coerced into converting to islam.  These are people who will not stop until the last “infidel” is slaughtered.  They will kill in every way they can and they won’t stop to ask if the person was a liberal or a conservative.  In fact, the only question they will ask you is if you will submit yourself to the religion of islam and worship its god.  If you say yes, you will be allowed to live as a slave to their mullahs.  If you say no, you will die.  There are no other options.  But to get to that point, people like bin Laden will continue to attack America.  If Obama actually allows those in Guantanamo to go free, Americans will pay for that mistake with their lives.

Sadly, it will take another 9/11 to make liberals realize that mistake.  But for those who die that day, it will be too late.



About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

4 comments on What Price Security?

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By D. E. Carson on January 23, 2009 at 10:29 pm

CORRECTION NOTE:  I am writing this before I even try to read responses in the event that someone decided to excoriate me for making a mistake.  A research error linked the name "al-Maliki" with the mastermind of the September 11 terrorist attacks.  This was an unfortunate event.  The name al-Maliki was in reference to Shaikh Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki, a Sunni muslim scholar who passed away in 2004.  The erroneous connection between Shaikh Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki and Khalid Shaikh Mohhammed is most regretable.  For the record Shaikh Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki was never associated with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 or any other terrorist.  It is with the utmost respect Carson's Corner apologizes to Shaikh Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki's family for any confusion or incovenience.  Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington and is currently being detained in Guantanamo.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on January 24, 2009 at 12:49 am

I knew I could count on Category Five over there to try and refute me.  Problem is, this time, he pulled a Rose Mountain on us and just did a cut and paste of what is called the "Executive Summary" of Denbeaux's report "Meaning of Battlefield."

For those of you not versed in academic jargon, an executive summary is similar in function to an abstract.  Both are designed to give the reader an idea of what appears in the main body of the article or paper.  The difference is that abstracts are usually about six to eight sentences.  The executive summary is generally longer.  It is a very condensed version of the report.

Now, I would like to think that CatFive over there actually took time to read the whole 30 pages of Denbeaux's report, however, because of how quickly his response was posted, I remain skeptical.

Perhaps it has escaped CatFive's reasoning, but it is highly unlikely that Mr. Denbeaux would be made privy to information labeled as "classified."  Specifically, Denbeaux's report on the 516 unclassified documents which Denbeaux claims are the only documents available as evidence supporting incarceration.  Denbeaux is failing to include the existence of documents that fall into the "classified" category.  Why?  Because those documents carry the more detailed information as to why the combatants are being held.

Secondly, The Department of Defense has enlisted the assistance of the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC), an independent and highly acclaimed civilian academic institution, to examine the same evidence examined by the Messrs. Denbeaux[2].

Now, putting all the cards on the table here, the CTC is a civilian organization that happens to be housed at the United States Military Academy at West Point.  But that is as far as the CTC's connection to the military goes.  It receives no money or direction from the military.

The CTC reviews the same material reviewed by Denbeaux and reached a very different conclusion:
1) 73% of the records reviewed contain at least one piece of evidence that a detainee posed a demonstrated threat to the United States or an ally.
2) 95% of the publicly available documents (remember there are some that are not available to the public due to national security reasons) substantiated detainee support of hostine activity, that the detainee was somehow affiliated with groups engaged in or supported terrorism or received weapons or weapons training useful in terrorist activities
3) of the publicly available Combatant Status Review Tribunal summaries, six contained no evidence meeting CTC's threat variables.

Dr. James Jay Carafano, who is recognized as an expert in Homeland Security has downplayed the Denbeaux report as not being peer reviewed (an important step required for an article to be taken seriously in the scholastic community) and supports the CTC's findings that Denbeaux omitted relevant information, misinterprets the language of the summaries by disregarding their context and draws unsupported conclusions.

Simply put, the Denbeaux report is more grandstanding and more liberal hooey designed to sour the American public on a policy that liberals have openly opposed out of sheer hatred and spite for former President George W. Bush.

Finally, according to the University of Pittsburgh School of Law's Jurist website[1], Denbeaux:
    1) has acknowledged that all interrogations at GTMO are taped
    2) reported that all interrogation rooms are monitored from remote locations via infrastructure in place for just such activity
    3) is personally acting counsel for detainees at GTMO.


Wait a minute, what was that last point again?  Denbeaux is personall acting counsel for detainees at GTMO.  Sure he is.  It says so right on the cover page of his own "Meaning of Battlefield" which CatFive was so gracious as to hand me on a silver platter so that I could use it to cut his throat as it were.

So of course Denbeaux is going to publish reports that tarnish and contradict what the Pentagon is saying about detainees at GTMO.  Specifically, he and his professional law firm (which also includes his son Joshua) represent two of the detainees.  He wants to undermine the Pentagon to bolster his own case.  That's what a defense lawyer is supposed to do.  Thing is, these enemy combatants are not citizens of the United States and therefore are not entitled to the same judicial rights as citizens who commit criminal acts.  The fourth amendment and the Miranda law do not apply to enemy combatants.  And the reason they are called "enemy combatants" is a concession the liberals who want America to honor the Geneva Convention.  This was supported in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) in a 5-4 ruling by the US Supreme Court -- albeit it was a crock of crap.  In that ruling, Enemy Combatants are said to be protected by the Geneva Convention, however in his dissenting argument, Justice Clarence Thomas reads the Geneva Conventions differently saying that enemy combatants are terrorist groups who do not subscribe to the conventions and they operate in mutiple theatres.  Additionally, the Geneva Conventions (Article 4, Section 2) spell out four criteria that define what a legal enemy combatant should look like: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

These goons in GTMO are not commanded by anyone -- responsible for them or otherwise, they do not have fixed distinctive signs (uniforms) recognizable at a distance -- they dress like the civilians around them.  This is geurella warfare at its finest, they do not carry arms openly, they hide them under robes or disguse them as disabled vehicles or wear them under their own clothing or drive them in fully operational vehicles and they sure as hell don't conduct operations in accordance with laws and customs of war -- beheading civilans is not allowed here, but try telling that to the savages who beheadded Daniel Pearl.

Suffice it to say, every liberal news outlet has jumped on Denbeaux's reports because they add fuel to their misguided belief that if America would just try being nicer to these people, they'll be nicer to us. 

Sorry Deano, but having said all of that, I stand by my story.  Furthermore, I don't really care to debate this with you anymore as it took me three hours to pour over everything -- including the drivel Denbeaux wrote -- all thirty pages of it.  You and I both know that we will never agree on Gitmo so let's just leave it at that.  You see, I can find documentation on the Internet that supports what I say AND debunks your mytholigical musings.  It's just that I don't have to spend time perusing ALL of the Internet.  I can read the top 2% of the news that is posted and actually apply common sense and figure out what the hell is going on around me, unlike liberals who have to wait for MSNBC to tell them what to think.



[1]http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/all-guantanamo-detainee-interrogations.php
[2]http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21812

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -3
By D. E. Carson on January 24, 2009 at 03:32 pm

"One, your link to the jurist.law.pitt.edu website delivers you to a report written by my guy Denbeaux and the Seton Hall Law Center."

And your point?  I never said anything to the contrary.  I was pointing out that even Denbeaux contradicts himself and is acting on behalf of detainees so as their lawyer he's GOING to say things that are supposed to damage the government's case.  AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, THAT'S HIS JOB!  You'd better call your friends over at the California Bar Association and re-check that because if he didn't try to discredit the government, he'd be guilty of malpractice and he'd be dis-barred.

As for the Human Events article, that was my jumping off point.  I'm hoping that when you attempt to debunk them, you make sure you follow their source leads before you open your mouth and reinsert your foot like you did with your original rebuttal.  The only reason I referenced them was because they were where I found out about the CTC and Dr. Carafano.  But of course, you're obviously too lazy to follow a lead like I did.

And yes, I do spit when I say "President Obama" because the man is not qualified to do the job.  He has no concept of what it takes to keep America safe.  He's already started unraveling what Bush set up (in case you forgot, there has never been an attack on American soil since 9/11 because of the work Bush did).  I will continue to spit when I say the words "President Obama" because I think the left wing whiny liberals need a taste of their own medicine.  You people spent eight years pounding on Bush.  Even on Inauguration Day when he appeared on the dais for the inauguration, there were "boos" and catcalls hurled at him.  You people love the idea of having a double standard.  It's okay for you to hate Bush and call him names and lie about him every chance you get, but when people start pointing out how Obama is living in a fantasy world with a September 10 mentality  we're described as not being "a good example of an American or a Christian."

I don't like Obama because he IS the moron everyone thought Bush was, period.  He's going to let America get attacked again.  He's going to make sure that more innocent Americans die and he will have their blood on his hands.

He's a naive fool for thinking that Ahmadinejhad, jong-Il and Chavez are rational people with whom he can sit down and say, "Please Mahmoud/Kim/Hugo, please don't cause America any more trouble, we promise to be nice."  That's a coward's way out.  It's appeasement, just like Chamberlain did to Hitler.  It doesn't work with bullies on the playground and it won't work in the real world where I live.  You are welcome to stay in your September 10 fantasy world with your messiah, his holiness Barack Hussein Obama, but I want no part of it.  I want a president who has the balls to stand up to our enemies,  Instead we now have one who's pussy whipped and thinks that if we just go back to the way things were on September 10, everything will be all right. He even admits that his mother-in-law has to defend him against Michelle, which means he doesn't have any balls.  Apparently Michelle has them in a jar somewhere and only lets them out when she wants to get boned -- which judging by how she acts and thinks America is a downright mean country appears to have been only twice in their marriage.

So go ahead and write your drivel.  I'll read it and just like you do mine, I'll give it a one star rating.  But I won't waste my time trying to debunk it, because it will be just that -- a waste of time.  A waste of your time for looking around to find all the lies and misleading information you can to bolster the case of a man whose only interest in the detainees is because he's getting paid to be their lawyer (either with money or he's stacking up favors for his own personal gain later) and is bound by an oath to give honest representation to every client regardless of his personal feelings -- although because he's a professor at a major university, that alone automatically places him in the bong-smoking, Bireknstock-wearing, tree-hugging, Bush-hating, thumb-sucking liberal whiners section (at least you now have some company) his personal feelings are right in the middle of his reason for defending two known terrorists.  But, that, of course is all MY opinion.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 5
By john robertson on January 25, 2009 at 04:27 am

All of the arguments I have heard for keeping Gitmo open are just too simple and have too many holes in them to convince me. When I listen to the hysterical right wingers convulse and hyperventilate about "terrorists being brought within our borders", I have to wonder; do they really not know that we have always detained terrorists within our borders? Where do they think we keep the American taliban? Where do they think we keep the original terrorists from the first WTC attack? Where do they think we house Eco terrorists and animal rights activists who want to blow up Oscar Meyers Plants? Uh.. we keep them in American prisons!

Listening to D.E. Carson, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, one would get the impression that closing down Gitmo and actually honoring the constitution that this great and mighty nation was built upon, is the equivalent of giving the terrorists smartly decorated cottages right next to elementary schools and a complimentary biological weapon to each and every Arabic houseguest.

Get real! They will be sequestered away from the public, under great security, and then they will be allowed a fair trial.

I look forward to hearing precisely what a terrorist is. Is a terrorist someone who says they dislike American policy of locking up, raping and torturing prisoners of war without a trial or any hope of ever defending yourself? Is a terrorist a young boy who grabbed a gun when he awoke one morning to find soldiers gang raping his fourteen year old sister and executing his father? Can someone be a terrorist without having ever stepped foot on our soil and without having any chances of ever saving up enough money from selling goat's milk to arrive here and terrorize us?

I very much look forward to hearing what a terrorist is, and I believe that is precisely why the righty-frighties are so hysterical about fair, constitutional trials. They don't want us to find out what a sham Gitmo was and just how often international law was broken. They don't want us to know that their definition of a terrorist may be someone who is much less frightning than who they said they were protecting us from.

John

 Report abuse



Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.


Rate This Article


Your vote matters to us



x


x