Gitmo Update

Now that Barack Obama and his radical Leftist -- i.e. lovers and protectors of terrorists everywhere -- friends are running national security, we're back to the same kind of law enforcement mentality that Bill Clinton employed which led to five separate (and major) terrorist attacks on America, two of which were on American soil.  I've posted about that pretty extensively in the past, so I won't rehash it too much now.  The basic knocks against that approach are:

1. it requires a very high standard of evidence-gathering which is completely unrealistic in a war zone
2. it is reactive rather than proactive (meaning that, even if you catch, try, convict, and imprison the terrorist, he still pulled off his attacks successfully)

George W. Bush implemented a proactive war mentality to fight terrorism after 9/11, and it worked - America was not attacked again, while simultaneously decimating Al Qaeda and liberating two countries.

But, now that the Obamessiah is trying his hand at terrorism, will he fare any better than his Democrat predecessor?  Well, it is a decade or two later, so maybe we need some contemporary examples of how the law enforcement approach works.  Heritage provides this:

If the experience of our closest allies in the war against terrorists is any indication, taking a pure law enforcement approach is dangerous, ill-advised, and might not bear much fruit. In the United Kingdom, of the 1,471 individuals arrested for alleged terrorist acts since September 11, 2001, only 340 suspects were charged with a terrorism-related crime. Of those 340 charged, only 196 terrorists were convicted. That means that the UK only achieved a 14% conviction rate for terrorism-related crimes.

Things aren't any better in the Netherlands where of the 153 individuals arrested for terrorism-related crimes since 9/11, 44 individuals were charged and only 20 individuals were convicted of terrorism, or just 13%.

Here's another reason why this approach is so tricky:

...prosecutors must balance the protection of intelligence sources and means against the need to present evidence in the courtroom. This balance is why some suspects are released or charged with lesser offenses or non-terrorism offenses such as fraud. Next, unlike other crimes, once a potential terrorism plot is detected, it is a judgment call as to when the threat becomes a clear and present danger thereby forcing law enforcement to intercept the plot and arrest the suspected terrorists. If this judgment call is made too early, then the ability of law enforcement to collect and preserve the evidence needed to obtain a conviction can be compromised. Finally, there is a fine line between when actions are legally protected, such as the First Amendment protections around speech and association, and when actions are illegal, such as inciting violence or planning to commit a terrorist act. For juries, deciding beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant crossed over the razor's edge to illegality can be incredibly hard to do.

Unfortunately, Obama is forcing just that scenario, even to the point of forcing combat soldiers to recite Miranda rights to terrorists in Afghanistan!  And we think this will win the war on terrorism how...??

Never one to quibble over reality, Obama is moving full steam ahead, and has brought the first Gitmo detainee to the U.S. for trial.  To my knowledge, he has yet to specify -- and his Kool-Aid drinking cheer squad of the media has yet to ask -- just what happens if this mass murderer and proud terrorist is acquitted?  What happens if we, too, get only a 13-14% conviction rate?  Do those terrorists who are acquitted get released into the U.S.?  We've shopped Gitmo detainees to over 100 other countries, and no one else really wants them, so what happens next?

***crickets chirping***

Perhaps not surprisingly, Obama nevertheless proceeded to poke our once-close ally, Great Britain, in the eye yet again by transferring four terrorists to Bermuda (the island of Palau, actually) with almost no advance notice or discussion.  While the Palauans aren't exactly happy about it, either, the terrorists appear to be having the time of their life:

They look like ordinary tourists as they stroll along the seafront on the British territory of Bermuda, but these four men are far from regular sunseekers for they have spent the last seven years locked up in Guantanamo Bay.

The former terror suspects are Uighurs - members of China's Muslim Turkic-speaking minority  - and hail from a rugged province in the far west of the country.

Simple pleasures: Salahidin Abdulahat takes a dip in the Atlantic ocean off the shore near Hamilton

[B]ecause no country volunteered to take them and it was feared they would be detained and tortured if they were returned to China, the men were left in limbo.

Now they have been given a chance by officials in the millionaire's playground - an island paradise that doubles as one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

And already they have dreams of opening the first Uighur restaurant.

Embracing the delights of their new island home, the Uighurs have already taken a sunset swim and caught a fish at their first attempt at fishing.



The four Uighurs (pronounced WEE'-gurs) also have immediate priorities, such as learning to drive, scuba dive and bowl, said Glenn Brangman, a former military official who is helping reintroduce them to the world outside prison.

You and I are paying $12 million apiece for their luxurious freedom, by the way.

So, how do you think Barack Obama's national security plans are working out?

There's my two cents.