President Obama to release Gitmo prisoners
Julie Wells
– Sr. Copy Editor–
In an act that is part publicity stunt, part Bush-backlash and completely ridiculous, President Obama will order the Guantanamo Bay Prison closed. He will then figure out what to do with more than 200 prisoners housed there. Very efficient.
The line of logic is never carried to an end. Liberals, lefties, and the great Bringer of Promises just see an opportunity to save another unfortunate soul who was chewed up and spit out by the American system they loathe so completely.
The terrorists suddenly become lost puppies that need adopting from shelters as opposed to dangerous criminals. But, they are murders and terrorists, criminals that men, our American men, died to capture.
These prisoners are people so entrenched in death and deceit that even execution could not render them solvent.
The men who remain at GTMO are the cream of the criminal crop. These are the men who cannot be released to the public, are in danger of torture or death from their home countries due to the heinous nature of their crimes, or are so detested that their homelands aren’t even willing to take them back at all. These men aren’t American citizens; they want to kill American citizens, and these are the men Obama wishes to save from Guantanamo and ship somewhere else to await trial.
I suppose Obama wants to make sure they have cable while they await thier speedy trial.
Presumably the burden would fall to other high-security American prisons. Leavenworth, Kan. is home to one such prison. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is formally objecting to having known terrorists so close to the people she represents.
It’s hard to disagree. It’s not that these people will escape and murder civilians, but the idea of making the comfort of terrorists more of a priority than the comfort of the citizens isn’t all that palatable.
Here’s an idea: if getting these terrorists out of Guantanamo is such a concern for Obama, then how about housing them in North Branch Correctional Institute of Maryland?
If Obama is okay with these men in his backyard, then it might be okay for him to force them into someone else’s. If, however, the President takes issue with his wife and children being in such close proximity to attempted hijackers,and plotters of terrorism then he should think twice about placing that burden on others.
So why would we turn terrorists over or transport them across our land? What advantage is gained by letting them out of the crosshairs? None.
Contrary to what the press and Obama say, President Bush is not the first man to deny civil rights to enemies or imprison proven or suspected war criminals for the duration of a war.P
President Lincoln suspended the rights to a timely trial in front of peers (habeas corpus) for southern sympathizers. President Roosevelt “interned” (or held indefinitely) 110,000 Japanese after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. And President Regan employed Extraordinary Rendition to capture a hijacker in an operation named “Goldenrod.”
The word torture may create discomfort, but the word terror should make people wake up.
We are fighting a war and whether or not you support the war or the last president, the tactics being employed are not new phenomena.
A quote from Catherine Moy, executive director of World Net Daily (wnd.com) and visitor at Guantanamo Bay prison, best captures the idiocy of the closure idea. Moy said, “I can assure you that these detainees live in comfort. Even the most dangerous are given movie nights if they behave, and they get to sit on an overstuffed couch in a climate-controlled room. It is all too good for people who want to kill us.’”
