The House Democrats, emboldened by the Supreme court decision to consider whether to allow Gitmo detainees to appeal their `convictions' in US courts are moving rapidly. They want to cut President Bush's budget for Guantanamo Bay prison in half, thus beating the Bush administration in shutting down the little tropical resort we have there for Islamic terrorists and POWs.
The White House has already said that Bush plans to close the resort and move the prisoners to, say Fort Leavenworth.By forcing the issue, the House Democrats can thus take credit.In July, the House Appropriations Committee is expected to propose funding only half of Guantanamo's budget in the military's annual spending bill.
"What I'm most concerned about is that we uphold a rule of law and not give our enemies a compelling talking point that we are not true to our principles," said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.a member of the panel's subcommittee that oversees military funding. "As long as we detain people indefinitely without charging them, it's a potent weapon in the propaganda war against this country. And that's what Guantanamo has become."
( Moran actually admitted we have enemies??!!??)
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, declined to confirm details of the House funding proposal. But he said: "Do I think it should be closed? Damn right I do."
Our old friends Senators Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, are working on similar legislation to close Guantanamo from the Senate end.
In a June letter to the president, congressman and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee weighed in with his usual common sense saying that any plans to close Guantanamo were "misguided" and "dangerous."
"Once these detainees are brought onto U.S. soil, the detainees may acquire minimal rights under the Constitution, including the right to protest their detentions in court" said Hunter "This change in status will inevitably spawn a completely new round of litigation."
Let's all get a clue, shall we? These creeps are not `detainees' or `prisoners' or `convicts'...most of them are POW's taken on the battlefield. Since when are we giving POW's the rights of American citizens?
And what's more, they are an intelligence resource, which is what Club Gitmo is really all about.
Club Gitmo has been around five years, and in that time, a certain numbers of the jihadis incarcerated there have been `turned'. it's not only what they know, but their knowledge of how al Qaeda and other jihad organizations work, their knowledge of the players.
Just like Mob informants, they are a resource to help our intel figure out who's who and what's what as new information comes to light. And with them jailed, we don't have to worry about them being hit, or revealing the lines our investigations are proceeding along.
As Duncan Hunter said, this is `misguided and dangerous'..to say the least.
2 comments:
The sentiments of Rep. Jim Moran to me demonstrate exactly what's wrong with our strategy. We are more concerned about not providing our enemies with "talking points" against us than actually fighting them. We want to be loved, not feared.
FF, the jihadis at Guantanamo aren't even POWs. They're illegal combatants. They don't fight for any nation and they wear no recognizable uniforms. According to the Geneva Conventions, this makes them illegal combatants. The difference is important because POWs are entitled certain rights, and POWs can't legally be tortured, for example. Illegal combatants are considered the same as spies, and we pretty much have a free hand with them.
If we close Gitmo, where would we put them anyway? How about John Edwards' 10,000 Sqft. McMansion?
Post a Comment