31 Victims Wish Gitmo Had Kept Mehsud

The moral of the story is that releasing terrorist enemy combatants from Guantanamo kills people. What is the story that leads to that moral? The tale of Abdullah Mehsud, a one-legged terrorist leader once housed at Guantanamo.

Liberal critics of the Bush administration’s detainment of terrorist enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay are full of sympathy and understanding for these so-called “freedom fighters” or “insurgents.” Those same critics have taken the administration to court in order to extend rights and legal representation to these terrorists caught in battle, arguing that they deserve criminal trials and should be released rather than held indefinitely. In the liberal mind these captured enemy combatants were never as dangerous or involved in high level terrorist activity as the military or the Bush administration claimed. As usual, however, liberal criticism of such military detentions has been proved unwarranted. As it turns out, even the detainees who are eventually released for various reasons immediately resume their jihad as soon as they return to Afghanistan, Iraq, or in one case symptomatic of the problem, Pakistan.

The story of Taliban leader Abdullah Mehsud illustrates quite clearly why it is not a good idea to release these enemy combatants while we are fighting a global war against Islamic terrorists. From today’s Washington Post:

A top Taliban commander who had became one of Pakistan's most wanted men since being released from U.S. custody in 2004 died Tuesday as security forces raided his hide-out, officials here said.

Abdullah Mehsud had earned a fearsome reputation by orchestrating brazen attacks and kidnappings, and was regarded as one of the masterminds of an insurgency that has spread from Afghanistan into Pakistan and grown more intense in recent weeks.

Pakistani officials said Mehsud blew himself up with a grenade early Tuesday morning rather than surrender as security forces closed in on his hideout....

...Mehsud, who was believed to be 31, was captured by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in late 2001, after the United States launched an invasion to topple the Taliban regime. The prisoner spent 25 months in the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But he apparently concealed his identity from his captors, and was released in March 2004. Mehsud later bragged that he had convinced Americans at Guantanamo that he was Afghan, not Pakistani.

Almost as soon as he was freed, the one-legged fighter -- he lost his other leg to a landmine -- resumed waging war, Pakistani officials say. The government of Pakistan placed an $84,000 bounty on his head after his followers kidnapped two Chinese engineers in October 2004. One of the engineers survived, while the other died during the rescue operation.

Mehsud, who operated both in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas of Pakistan, was believed to have ties to al Qaeda. It was not known if he had a role in the recent spate of attacks, though he was suspected in connection with a car bombing last week that targeted a convoy of Chinese engineers in Baluchistan. The engineers survived, but 30 Pakistanis were killed.

In this case, the government released Mehsud because he reportedly convinced Guantanamo officials that he was not a Taliban terrorist in Pakistan. The veracity of Mehsud’s bragging is questionable, but his release and subsequent behavior validate the Bush administration’s policy of indefinite detainment at facilities like Guantanamo. Even if the two attacks described above were the only ones orchestrated by Mehsud since his release from Guantanamo, which is highly unlikely, his release alone directly led to the deaths of 31 victims.

He returned to Pakistan and immediately resumed his role as an inspirational terrorist leader, yet the president’s critics incessantly pine for legal protections and releases for more than three hundred of Mehsud’s fellow terrorists. I am sure the families of Mehsud’s 31 most recent victims could offer convincing testimony regarding the wisdom of indefinite detentions for enemy combatants at Guantanamo. Unfortunately, liberals seeking to condemn President Bush listen more closely to the ACLU’s defense of “rights” for detainees than they do to reports of what happens when murderous terrorists are set free.

Mehsud further demonstrated that he preferred an explosive suicidal death to being captured and facing any form of legal prosecution or Pakistani military detainment. By continuing his policy of taking the fight to the enemy in its own lands, President Bush is allowing all who share Mehsud’s desire for ultimate justice their opportunity for self-execution. In the end, Mehsud did not want a lawyer, he wanted a grenade. He did not want a trial, he wanted martyrdom.

Ironically, he was never safer from his own suicidal ideology than he was while detained at Guantanamo. Setting such men free is potentially lethal, to innocents and to the terrorists themselves. We can increase global security for everyone by keeping these captured terrorists in pocket as long as we are at war with them.

Technorati Tags:
Abdullah Mehsud, Guantanamo, Enemy Combatants, al Qaeda, Bush Administration, Suicide, Islamic Terrorists

NYT's Shocking Guantanamo Editorial

The end of the world is upon us, perhaps not in an immediately apocalyptic sense, but the signs of the times are increasingly bizarre, and inexplicable things are happening. What else can explain the publication in today’s New York Times of a guest editorial singing the praises of the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center? After years of misleading and shallowly researched stories by its own staff recounting alleged torture and prisoner abuse by the U.S. military at Guantanamo, The New York Times revealed a glimmer of journalistic integrity by deeming Colonel Morris Davis’s “The Guantanamo I Know” as “fit to print.” Capital Cloak frequently decries liberal bias in the media, but is also fair in reporting when liberal media outlets like the Times make any effort to present both sides of an issue. If only it would happen more often!

Air Force Col. Davis, the chief prosecutor for the Defense Department in military commissions, which have come under fire from war critics and Bush administration opponents, provided specific details of the amenities afforded to terrorists housed at the Guantanamo detention center. Consider the following privileges prisoners there enjoy, keeping in mind that they are terrorists captured in battle with our troops or known to have plotted and carried out attacks worldwide, and decide for yourselves whether the notorious concentration camp-like descriptions of Guantanamo recklessly spoken by Democrats and gladly reported by the liberal media match the reality of life for prisoners:

The makeshift detention center known as Camp X-Ray closed in early 2002 after just four months of use. Now it is overgrown with weeds and serves as home to iguanas. Yet last week ABC News published a photo online of Camp X-Ray as if it were in use, five years after its closing.

Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo.

Standards at Guantánamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the United States and abroad. After an inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in March 2006, a Belgian police official said, “At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”

Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the “Australian Taliban,” asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”

Given the descriptions offered by Col. Davis and from the firsthand accounts I have been privy to, it would seem that terrorists captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and held in Guantanamo enjoy far better living standards and hygienic conditions than media darling Paris Hilton recently experienced in Los Angeles County jail facilities. Where were the calls from the liberal media to close down the L.A. County jails for their inhumanity? Where were the arguments that America is losing its moral high ground through its substandard prison facilities for convicted celebrities? Celebrities should be outraged that terrorists receive better treatment at Guantanamo!

Col. Davis performed a further act of educational service for liberals who insist that military commissions do not comply with Geneva Convention articles. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration did its homework on the legalities of the powers of a commander in chief and came to the appropriate conclusion that military commissions do in fact provide all of the fundamental guarantees of Article 75 of the Geneva Convention Protocol:

Each accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language; outside influence on witnesses and trial participants is prohibited; the accused may challenge members of the commission; an accused may represent himself or have assistance of counsel; he is presumed innocent until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; he is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf; he is not required to incriminate himself at trial and his silence is not held against him; he may not be tried a second time for the same offense; and he is entitled to the assistance of counsel through four stages of post-trial appellate review ending at the United States Supreme Court.

One myth is that the accused can be excluded from his trial and convicted on secret evidence. The administrative boards that determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant and whether he is a continuing threat may consider classified information in closed hearings outside the presence of the detainee. But military commissions may not. The act states, “The accused shall be permitted ... to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing.” Unless the accused chooses to skip his trial or is removed for disruptive behavior, he has the right to be present and to confront all of the evidence.

Despite all of these legal protections, none of which are offered to U.S. troops who have the misfortune of falling into terrorist hands, critics of Guantanamo have continued to argue that military commissions are unfair because hearsay evidence is permitted and considered for or against the defendant. U.S. criminal courts, where liberals apparently feel more comfortable about prosecuting terrorists, do not allow hearsay testimony. Col. Davis exposed the fallacy of this argument over the unfairness of military commissions and hearsay testimony by reminding critics of the following point:

…While this standard permits admission of some evidence that would not be admissible in federal courts, the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals.

There is no ban on hearsay among the indispensable rights listed in the Geneva Conventions. Nor is there a ban on hearsay for the United Nations-sanctioned war crimes tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Nuremberg trials also did not limit hearsay evidence. Simply stated, a ban on hearsay is not an internationally recognized judicial guarantee.

While Democrats, anti-war demonstrators, and the eager liberal media pummel the Bush administration for allegedly denying captured enemy combatants due process under Geneva Protocols at Guantanamo, they either ignorantly or intentionally disregard the fact that their sacred Geneva Protocols have been complied with in full and the prisoner facilities are superior in all respects to the standards of prisons anywhere in the world. Col. Davis’s guest editorial proved once again that when it comes to the ridiculous accusations from the left that President Bush and Vice President Cheney committed alleged “war crimes” related to treatment of enemy combatants in the War on Terror, there is plenty of hysteria but no substance.

Congratulations to the New York Times for doing, in this case at least, its job by publishing a conservative rebuttal to 4 years of misleading and inaccurate liberal reports of conditions at Guantanamo. Perhaps the Times will now run a series of editorials in which it will seek to repair the damage it has done to worldwide opinion of President Bush’s integrity on this issue after relentlessly impugning it for years. I won’t hold my breath for that to happen. That truly would be a sign that the end is near.

Technorati Tags:Guantanamo, Prisoner Treatment, Military Commissions, Geneva Convention, Bush Administration, Torture, Hearsay, Enemy Combatants

McCain: "I'm Sure I have a Policy on That, I Just Need to Check What it is"

After 25 years in Washington (as a Congressman and Senator), 2008 presidential candidate Senator John McCain, when asked his position on government subsidies for contraception, made the following statement on the campaign trail in Iowa, as reported by the Telegraph (UK):

"I'm sure I have a policy on that. I just need to check what it is," he replied, before seeking illumination from his aides.

Can a candidate or elected official really claim to have a policy on any issue if it is not ingrained sufficiently into his knowledge base that he can recall it without prompting from an aide? This one sentence response illustrates much of what is lacking in political campaigning and in a larger sense, in governance itself. Elected officials believe themselves too busy to dedicate themselves to any actual study and internalization of issues, preferring instead to hire cadres of aides to learn the issues for them and advise the politicians of what they should think and say about an issue. While this approach allows the politicians more time to engage in glad-handing and stump speaking for their election and reelection campaigns, it also has the unfortunate consequence of assuring that the individuals Americans actually vote for suffer a deplorable paucity of personal awareness of the issues on which they vote. Those issues seriously affect the nation’s course in economics, health, morality, and national security, but are deemed less important than campaigning by candidates while others learn the issues for them.

The question asked of Senator McCain was not a complicated one. Either you believe that the government should spend taxpayer money to buy contraceptives for America’s youth who choose promiscuity over abstinence, or you don’t. It is highly improbable that Senator McCain did not know what he thought about such a question, and if one defends his response by praising his wisdom in clarifying his position before answering, one is actually defending a candidate’s right to say what others want to hear rather than what he personally believes or what needs to be said. Stating what you believe and saying what needs to be said are demonstrations of leadership. Declining to answer questions until you can confer with aides and read your politically correct cue cards is a demonstration of unprincipled ambition. Soothsayers tell the masses whatever is popular and what they want to hear. Leaders tell the masses what needs to be done and why, knowing that it will likely be unpopular.

McCain also seems to be seeking a career as soothsayer to Europe and other regions that harbor anti-American sentiment (hat tip to Wizbang Politics). During his speech to the farmers of Cedar Falls, Iowa, McCain expressed great concern for America’s image around the world, particularly in Europe, and that restoring a good image (i.e. being more like them and less like us) will be a “top priority” if he is elected president in 2008. On the surface, the concept of improving relations with our once loyal European allies seems laudable, but then McCain explained what steps he would take to improve America’s image abroad and the pandering to European popularity takes an ominous turn:

"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."

Perhaps Senator McCain’s aides, who apparently tell him what his positions are, should advise him that he was elected to represent Arizona in the Senate, not The Hague, and that if elected president in 2008 he would be obligated to implement the will of the American electorate, not the EU. Climate change is also very important to Al Gore, so perhaps Senator McCain is auditioning for a VP spot in Gore’s undeclared but inevitable run for the White House, since these statements embracing liberal ideologies will assure McCain’s quick exit in the GOP primaries and availability as Gore’s running mate.

More troubling than his desire to please Europe is the fact that he embraces the idea of closing the Guantanamo detention facility, where enemy combatants are held and interviewed. At Guantanamo, terrorists captured during our counterterrorism actions worldwide are kept them from killing our troops in the field, and we receive the added benefit of occasionally gleaning valuable information from them that disrupts future terrorist attacks or provides better understanding of the structure and operational tactics of al Qaeda and other groups.

John McCain is opposed to torture, and based on his well-documented experience as a POW in Vietnam, the reasons for his opposition are valid and unassailable. However, Guantanamo is not Abu Ghraib, and as confessed 9/11 planner and self-proclaimed super terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed clearly stated in his testimony last week, he was never tortured at Guantanamo and no part of his confession was the result of coercion or was extracted through torture tactics.

I wrote recently about the legal and practical dangers associated with closing Guantanamo and relocating the detainees to military brigs inside the U.S. Proposals for closure and relocation have come from Democrats in Congress, but Senator McCain has allied himself with their cause, another issue on which he has ignored the will of the people in order to cast himself as a “maverick” or as more palatable to the liberal media than his more conservative opponents for the GOP presidential nomination. Virginia’s citizens, regardless of party, are opposed to the relocation of Guantanamo detainees to Quantico or other facilities within the Commonwealth.

If Senator McCain’s support for facility closure is sincere, he should also be in favor of relocating the terrorist detainees to Arizona for criminal trials in federal courts in his own state. So far, Senator McCain has been silent on whether his Arizona constituents would approve of having hundreds of terrorists transported to and housed in their state. Perhaps the Senator has a policy on this, but needs to check with his aides to learn what it is.

Throughout his Senate career, Senator McCain has straddled the fences between the two parties far too often to be trusted by either one. In some respects, though he worded it differently, McCain echoed a sentiment he apparently shares with John Kerry. Kerry, as readers will remember, called America “an international pariah” during a World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. McCain, in his Cedar Falls speech, stressed his desire to counter the “ugly American” image prevalent in Europe. Kerry and McCain seem to share the conviction that anti-American sentiment in Europe is America’s fault, and that American policies and administrations (President Bush in particular) are responsible for giving Europeans cause to dislike America.

Conservative media, including Spy The News!, lambasted Kerry for his remarks, but McCain deserves equal condemnation for ignoring history (which he claims to study and love). Europeans have always disdained America and its culture. We were considered uncouth ruffians by the French during the Revolutionary War, and that opinion has not been changed by 231 years of global leadership in technology, industry, transportation, medicine, and military achievement. Not even our generous rebuilding of nations destroyed in world wars has moved European nations permanently into America’s corner.

Liberating France in WWII did not create an eternal debt of gratitude among the French, and rebuilding Germany did not prevent that nation from protesting against American Cold War policies or opposing our post 9/11 military actions. The Marshall Plan was unparalleled in human history for its strategic compassion and generosity, yet few of the nations restored to viability by that plan can be counted today as reliably pro-American. The idea that if America would stop being so American, and would try to be more like Europe, then Europe would love America and never oppose it again is patently ludicrous. The same logic is put forward by anti-war demonstrators who claim that if America will address the root causes of terrorism, or if America will stop supporting Israel, or if America will just sit down and negotiate with the terrorists, the terrorists will stop wanting to kill us.

Appeasement will always fail, regardless of whether the appeasement is given to “friend” or foe. America did not cause anti-American sentiment. Blaming America is an international pastime rivaling only soccer in popularity. Whether it stems from envy, revenge, fear, insecurity, or ignorance, the motivation behind anti-Americanism is rarely the result of American action or inaction, though we are demonized for both. They dislike America for what America is and for what the EU aspires to be but falls short.

Senator McCain’s aides may wish to consider researching whether the American electorate wants America to be more, or less, like Europe. Europe is gravitating, rather quickly, toward universal socialism via the EU. Religion has been purged from political discourse, and politically correct tolerance there has resulted in a severe decline in societal morals and families bound by marriage. The only segments of European society that are continuing to marry and produce children are religious immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, please remind us again why we want to be more like Europe? Other than 2 hour naps during lunch time and a mandatory month of annual summer vacation, there is little reason for America to adopt European societal or political habits.

Presenting Europe, and the rest of the world, with a strong, confident, and noble America that says and does what is right may not always win friends among the feckless, but it is a demonstration of leadership. McCain and Kerry consistently place their concern for global popularity ahead of what America’s voters want from their leaders. Also not surprisingly, McCain’s declining appeal to presidential election voters will assure that he, like Kerry, will remain a soothsaying Senator with frustrated presidential aspirations.

"I'm Sorry, So Sorry, but You Had it Coming": Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Carefully Crafted "Confession" Fools Only the Foolish

During each installment of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly shares what he considered to be the “Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.” In that spirit, Spy the News! today offers the “Most Blatantly Dishonest Statement of the Day.” The newly confessed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who also admitted to beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearle and planning nearly every major terrorist attack in the world between 1993 and his capture, uttered the following “apology” for some 9/11 casualties during a military tribunal (transcript available here):

When I said I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America, I feel sorry even. I don't like to kill children and the kids.

Unfortunately for Daniel Pearle, KSM’s “sorrow” for killing so many Americans on 9/11 did not dissuade him from savagely beheading Pearle on camera for the world to witness the following year. There is likewise no evidence of sorrow in any of the 31 terrorist actions or plots for which KSM claimed responsibility, including the Bali bombing pictured at right. Pages 17-19 of the tribunal transcript list each of the plots he allegedly planned according to his own confession. If KSM’s confession is accepted at face value, he would be considered history’s greatest terrorist mastermind, a jet-setting jihadist of unparalleled achievement. Yet that begs the question, did he actually plan and orchestrate this long list of planned attacks, or is he merely taking credit either for personal aggrandizement or to protect his al Qaeda co-conspirators? I find it highly improbable that KSM was involved with each of these plots to the level that he now alleges. His Oscar-worthy expression of "sorrow" fits neither his known personality nor his jihadist commitment, and thus should only be considered a tryout for Best Actor rather than as an expression of any semblance of humanity. Read the list of actions he claims responsibility for again, and you will find no remorse, no sorrow, no tears. You will only find hate and a heretical religious fervor.

It is not uncommon for a prisoner facing no hope of release to confess to multiple crimes or terrorist acts for a variety of reasons, ranging from hopes for assignment to a more exclusive prison facility than a common criminal would receive to diverting investigative attention away from his or her accomplices. A careful reading of KSM’s testimony suggests that he viewed his appearance before the tribunal as a method for judicial martyrdom and a public relations windfall. KSM revealed his understanding of world media and displayed remarkable skill in his ability to cast himself as a sympathetic figure to other peoples and nations “oppressed” by America.

He compared Bin Laden to George Washington and claimed that using current American criteria for declaring a warrior for "independence" to be an "enemy combatant," George Washington could have been classified one as well. Of course, KSM omits the fact that the American colonies formally declared their independence, formed an organized military service, and established an autonomous war time government. To my knowledge, radical Islamic terrorists have not done any of these and thus represent no declared or recognized nation, but I digress.

KSM artfully seized on rising anti-American sentiment in Latin America by condemning America for “invading” Mexico and stealing two-thirds of its territory in the name of Manifest Destiny in the nineteenth century. His testimony covered a broad range of historical and religious comparisons. He appeared to know instinctively how best to manipulate the media coverage of his confession to satisfy the anti-Bush appetite of the liberal media. He believed it would likely be his last opportunity to be heard.

There are some in the media who believe KSM’s statement that he was tortured by the CIA rather than interrogated, and others see similarities between his expressions of sorrow and the torture-induced “confessions” of war crimes the North Vietnamese extracted from American POWs, including Senator John McCain. McCain wrote about such confessions in great detail in his memoir Faith of My Fathers, and even a cursory comparison of those cruelty-induced confessions with the boastful admissions of KSM should convince anyone that KSM made no statements under duress at the tribunal and was not tortured into a confession, as our POWs were, in grotesque and unspeakable ways. To compare the two situations is an insult to the courageous suffering America POWs endured in Vietnam.

It is fascinating that many in the media accept KSM’s word as unassailable truth when he stated he was tortured by the CIA prior to his transfer to Guantanamo, but they omit his testimony that he was not tortured in any way at Guantanamo and that his confession was in no way induced by any tactics or made under duress. Selective trust in a terrorist is a dangerous mentality, and it clearly illustrates that some in the media trust a confessed terrorist mastermind responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide more than they trust President Bush. Media Bias? You decide. Spy The News! is confident of which one Daniel Pearle and the 9/11 victims would trust.

Why Courts Cannot be Entrusted with the War on Terror: Blind Judicial Trust and the Need to Keep Detainees at Gitmo

For anyone still clinging to the fallacious belief that the War on Terror should be chiefly a law enforcement effort involving prosecution in the U.S. court system, as the Clinton administration attempted, an AP report today provided another illustration of why that approach has never been, and will never be, a successful path to eventual victory.

As reported in the New York Sun, Mohammed Salah, a convicted suspect awaiting sentencing in Illinois for perjury in a case involving a conspiracy to launder money for the terror group HAMAS, was not considered a flight risk by U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve, and will be allowed to remove a court-ordered electronic tracking device for his upcoming pre-sentencing vacation at Disney World. According to the Sun article, the Assistant U.S. Attorney in the case tried in vain to convince the judge that Salah’s promises to return to court for sentencing in June, made as they were by a convicted perjurer with links to a terror group, should not be trusted. The judge dismissed this logic, stating, “I’m confident that he will come back.” A delighted Salah reacted to the judge’s permissiveness:

"I get to take it off," a smiling Salah told reporters after court, pointing to a bulge under his left sock where the government has placed an electronic monitoring bracelet to make sure he stays under house arrest.

Judge St. Eve is living proof that President Bush has not appointed exclusively conservative judges during his terms in office. St. Eve, whose views and education are consistent with 1960s liberalism, admitted at her appointment in 2002 to not sharing the President’s political ideals: “Had there been a litmus test on a hot-button conservative issue, ‘I don't know how I could have passed,’ she confesses.” St. Eve's trusting nature is merely a symptom of the larger problem within the judiciary: Not taking the threat of terrorism seriously. For further examples of cases where judges ruled against the War on Terror, click here.

While Salah is grateful for St. Eve’s liberalism and happily sheds the ability of the Justice Department to monitor his whereabouts, another developing story demonstrated that misplaced faith in the judicial system’s efficacy in fighting terrorism is not limited to gullible judges. The Richmond Times-Dispatch (VA) reported today that Democratic members of the U.S Congress are pursuing legislation to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and move detainees to brigs at military bases on the east coast, including the Quantico Marine Corps Base.

While Democrats have claimed that the expenses associated with Guantanamo justify closure of that facility, their pious demand for fiscal responsibility on this issue should be met with skepticism. Democrats have sought throughout the War on Terror to curb President Bush’s war powers, and forcing a closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo would be more than a symbolic victory in the only war they want to win, the War on Bush. Closing Guantanamo and moving prisoners to bases in the U.S. would effectively remove the detainees from Bush’s control as Commander in Chief and place them under the protective care of the Democrats’ preferred source of all rights and authority, the judicial system. The Times-Dispatch article confirms that granting legal rights and defense attorneys to terror detainees is at the heart of the matter:

Rep. James P. Moran, D-8th, said yesterday that he favors bringing Guantanamo detainees who have been charged with offenses to military brigs in the jurisdiction of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"That's the most conservative circuit court" in the nation, said Moran, a senior member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. "So nobody can charge [the detainees] won't get a speedy and disciplined trial."

Representative Moran and his Democratic colleagues have not learned from the mistakes of the Clinton administration and continue to put their trust in a judicial system that has already proven incapable of investigating, punishing, and deterring terrorism. While the Clinton Justice Department investigated and ultimately prosecuted Ramsey Yousef for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, others were planning and training for upcoming attacks on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the USS Cole, and eventually 9/11. There is nothing in a criminal trial that can force a defendant to divulge operational information about his organization or co-conspirators. As long as the defendant is willing to accept prosecution and a prison sentence as a form of martyrdom for the cause, prosecutors have no leverage to apply in order to obtain intelligence information that could prevent future attacks or identify other terrorists.

From a purely practical perspective, the argument that operating the detention facility in Guantanamo costs the taxpayers too much money is dubious. If the detainees are moved to bases within U.S. District Court jurisdiction, taxpayers will be financing the legal costs for court proceedings, which will endure for years through endless appeals, as well as what would surely be upgraded housing and dietary provisions compared to Guantanamo. Representative Moran should be challenged to produce a cost comparison between current Guantanamo expenses and those his proposal would incur. Since this is actually a political stunt rather than a legitimate cost-cutting measure, I suspect Americans will never see any such comparison study made available for review.

How did Virginia’s Republicans react to the proposed move of these detainees to bases inside the U.S.? From the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star:

"The Democrat Congress may think it's a great idea to move Islamic Jihadists less than 35 miles of the Pentagon, but it strikes me as poorly conceived," said RPV chairman Ed Gillespie, in a press release. "Moran's proposal would not be good for our national security, and it would not be good for the people in Stafford and neighboring counties."

Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Gloucester, also released a statement criticizing the proposal--including the anonymous suggestion of keeping terrorism suspects at Quantico--calling it "reckless policy."

"Bringing terrorists to Quantico, among other places, poses a homeland security threat," said Davis, whose district includes Stafford. "We in Congress are supposed to be working to keep terrorists out of America, not helping to bring them in."

Our court system does not strike fear in the heart of any terrorist and offers no hope for deterrence of future terrorist attacks. One need only point to the juries in the O.J. Simpson or “Scooter” Libby trials for examples of how easily juries can be duped by cleverly presented appeals to their racial or political sympathies. Terrorists would consider it a great luxury and good fortune to be prosecuted in U.S. courts. They would like their chances for acquittal, but even if convicted they would enjoy planning their subsequent unmonitored trips to Disney World.

Perhaps Judge St. Eve and Representative Moran could collaborate with Disney World on a project that would end terrorism through our liberal goodwill: Disney Detainee Day! After a few hours of continuous sailing through “It’s a Small World,” the jihadists will desperately sue for peace. On second thought, we are told that torture is an ineffective tool in the War on Terror. The ankle bracelet-free Salah would surely agree that when it comes to prosecuting terrorism in America’s courts, “it’s a world of laughter. . . .”