President Barack Obama's intelligence chief confirmed Thursday that some Guantanamo inmates may be released on US soil and receive assistance to return to society.That's right. Obama is planning to release Gitmo detainees on U.S. soil and then give them taxpayer money!!! What could possibly go wrong with that?"If we are to release them in the United States, we need some sort of assistance for them to start a new life," said National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair at his first press conference.
"You can't just put them on the street," he added. "All that is work in progress."
Thomas Joscelyn at Weekly Standard has some thoughts with which I heartily concur:
Keep in mind that these are not just run-of-the-mill 'detainees' we're talking about. The majority of the people at Gitmo are terrorists and enemy combatants who were captured on the field of battle or in the midst of operations to kill Americans. They violated the Geneva Conventions and thus legally have no right to those protections. They are not American citizens and thus legally have no rights according to our Constitution. Most of their home countries don't want them back (which is why we're stuck with them), or we don't want to give them back because they'll experience genuine torture -- not just loud music and sleep deprivation -- and execution. When they've been released in the past, many of them go right back to the field of battle again.Four short questions/comments:
(1) Does this mean that the Obama administration is planning on giving some freed Guantanamo detainees a stipend? It sure appears that way. So, not only is the Obama administration planning on freeing some detainees on U.S. soil, it is also going to pay them to live here. Amazing. Who would have thought that we would see the day when detainees who were once labeled enemy combatants would be receiving welfare?
(2) The Uighur detainees are cited, over and over again, as the types of detainees who can be safely released into the U.S. This conclusion has been reached through a combination of specious reasoning and ignorance.
None of the 17 Uighurs are master terrorists on par with the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. They were mostly new recruits at the time of their capture. However, as I have argued before, they are all affiliated with and/or members of a designated terrorist organization, received training at a training camp in the al Qaeda/Taliban stronghold of Tora Bora, and have admitted that they were trained by two known terrorists. And, on top of that, the group that trained them threatened to attack the Olympic Games in China last year.
Even if you don't think that we should lock them up and throw away the key, do we really want to pay them to live on U.S. soil?
(3) The AP says the United States can't find a country to take the Uighurs, other than China, which may treat them harshly. But that really remains to be seen. Ireland, for example, has apparently offered to take some Guantanamo detainees. Other European nations have been somewhat more reticent.
(4) Is the Obama administration considering paying other Guantanamo detainees to live in the U.S. as well?
So, here we are in America in 2009. Our own President has consistently bashed America while cozying up to our enemies. To that end, he's going to close a key military installation and release the terrorists being detained there on American soil. Then he's going to pay them with our tax dollars while they -- most likely -- prepare for terror attacks on our homeland from our homeland. I'm actually kind of surprised that Osama bin Laden doesn't just walk out of the bush and turn himself in. As long as Obama is in charge, that's the fastest, easiest way to set up an operation right here in the United States - he doesn't need to direct anything from a remote location in a third world country...he just needs to go through Obama's process and he'll be set up by us right here in his target zone!
This is the end result of the liberalization of America. Like I said repeatedly last fall, the 2008 election will have tremendous consequences. This is one of them.
Here's another thing that irks me. Democrats love to say Obama is another FDR. A reminder:
Japanese American internment refers to the forcible relocation and internment of approximately 110,000 Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans to housing facilities called "War Relocation Camps", in the wake of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[1][2] The internment of Japanese Americans was applied unequally throughout the United States. Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast of the United States were all interned, whereas in Hawaii, where over 150,000 Japanese Americans composed nearly a third of that territory's population, an additional 1,200[3] to 1,800 Japanese Americans were interned.[4] Of those interned, 62 percent were United States citizens.[5][6]
President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones", from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington, except for those in internment camps.
Whatever you think about FDR's economic policies, he at least had a sense of priority when it came to protecting America! In this case, one could easily argue that he overstepped his bounds, but in terms of making a mistake, at least FDR made a mistake on the side of caution. Obama is doing nothing of the sort - he is quite literally inviting disaster on this country, and is even paying for it with your tax dollars.
Democrats also love to say Obama is another Abe Lincoln. A reminder:
[During the Civil War, 1861-1862] The slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware did not secede. Lincoln urgently negotiated with state leaders there, promising not to interfere with slavery. After the fighting started, he had rebel leaders arrested in all the border areas and held in military prisons without trial. Over 18,000 were arrested, though none were executed.
Again, one could argue that Lincoln overstepped his Constitutional authority, but this also shows that Lincoln's mistake was on the side of victory and protection, as well. He didn't cozy up to his enemies.
The point is that Barack Obama is not remotely close to either of these historical figures in terms of decisiveness, nor in terms of his will or ability to protect America. Democrats need to review their history, and then shut up. Oh, wait, there I go again. I keep thinking history should matter, but it really doesn't. Not to them.
I do not see how this can end any other way than badly, and Barack Obama will be directly responsible for whatever death and destruction is caused.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment