NYT: Pentagon holding back report showing 1 in 7 freed Gitmo detainees returned to terrorism

posted at 6:06 pm on May 20, 2009 by Allahpundit

A compromise from the Times. They went ahead and published this notwithstanding the fact that it’s a crap sandwich for The One, especially at this particular moment in the debate, but they bent over backwards to emphasize that the delay’s all DOD’s fault, not his. So he’s really sort of a victim, you see, even though as C-in-C he could have demanded the report any time he wanted.

Two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the report was being held up by Defense Department employees fearful of upsetting the White House, at a time when even Congressional Democrats have begun to show misgivings over Mr. Obama’s plan to close Guantánamo…

The report was made available by an administration official sympathetic to its findings who said the delay was creating unnecessary “conspiracy theories” about the holdup…

“If we hold it, then everybody claims it’s political and you’re protecting the Obama administration,” said a [DOD] official, who asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. “And if we let it go, then everybody says you’re undermining Obama.”…

Among the 74 former prisoners that the report says are again engaged in terrorism, 29 have been identified by name by the Pentagon, including 16 named for the first time in the report. The Pentagon has said that the remaining 45 could not be named because of national security and intelligence-gathering concerns…

The Pentagon has so far provided no way of authenticating its 45 unnamed recidivists, and only a few of the 29 people who are identified by name can be independently verified as having engaged in terrorism since their release. Many of the 29 are simply described as associating with terrorists or training with terrorists, with almost no other details provided.

Seems like an easy solution here: If administration officials already have the report, they could take the decision out of DOD’s hands by releasing it themselves. Which, I suppose, is precisely what they did in essence by leaking it to the Times. Better to push it out there now, while the plan to close Gitmo is momentarily deceased, than to let it linger and go through another clusterfark down the road after it’s resuscitated.

Speaking of clusterfarks, here’s Gibbs at today’s presser making the astonishing admission that the decision to close Guantanamo was “hasty.” Or is he? Geraghty’s bowled over, but my sense is that when Gibbs says “we’ve made some hasty decisions that are now going to take some time to unwind, and closing Guantanamo Bay, obviously, is one of those decisions,” he means America under Bush made a hasty decision in setting up Gitmo (note that this remark immediately follows a critique of the prison) and now The One has to deal with the fallout from that. The alternative is that he’s kneecapping his own boss by saying he acted rashly in fulfilling a campaign promise to order Gitmo shut down right away. Gibbs isn’t that stupid (I think), but you make the call.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Yeah, that’s right. The Democrats have far more contempt for conservatives in this country than they do for anyone in the Islamic world.

ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 7:54 PM

we may get the opportunity to show reciprocity if they ever push too hard.

sven10077 on May 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM

sven10077 on May 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM

It makes me smile that they rely on the same people they despise for their own protection. Oh what a rude awakening will come their way.

dpierson on May 20, 2009 at 7:57 PM

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 7:34 PM

Now remember this…the rules are different. As “enemy combatants” they don’t have to be charged with any “crime”, and can be released for any reason. Mostly they have been released because of bleating from people like you. Your argument is a strawman. They simply are not entitled to the same protections you and I are.

JeffWeimer on May 20, 2009 at 7:57 PM

*stir stir stir*

Bishop on May 20, 2009 at 7:55 PM

Bishop Jumper got his Cialis, in part because the notion that the zoomies can do it solo is real in the USAF and has been.

sven<—-big believer in the triad and Combined Arms as well

sven10077 on May 20, 2009 at 7:57 PM

I’m talking about Iraq. Why is it kidnapping in Milan but not kidnapping when it’s done in Tikrit? People snatched off the street, bundled into vehicles and driven away? That’s basically how Saddam was taken; dragged from a hole and carted away in the dead of night. Think of the anti-American sentiment….whoa.

Like I said earlier, you have to be willing to think of this beyond the two dimensional, there are quite a number of other scenarios that could have played out as to why this guy in Milan was grabbed.

Bishop on May 20, 2009 at 7:51 PM

Operations in a country that you control are different from operations in a country you do not control. It’s not that hard. Much like if Italy wants to pull some shady operations in Italy that’s their own business, but if they try it in the US they will catch heat (rightly!).

Saddam was taken, the event was publicized and he was turned over to the Iraqis to charge and convict as they saw fit. Abu Omarwas taken in an illegal operation, flown around the world and allegedly tortured and then released after four years. It was all covert and didn’t involve a country we were at war with or in control of. They are not similar.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM

How do you know that we did not have the approval of the Italian Government?

dpierson on May 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM

They simply are not entitled to the same protections you and I are.

JeffWeimer on May 20, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Why not, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence state that all men are created equal?

What if American citizens were captured by a foreign government and held without charge? Would you be upset? It’s happened before (Iran hostages come to mind) and caused international outrage.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:03 PM

allah pundit,
for weeks now Obama admin officials have floated trial balloons about re-opening tribunals. In time this turned into yes we will re-open the tribunals, all of these things are about providing cover for Obama as he backpedals on the one year gitmo pledge.

rob verdi on May 20, 2009 at 8:04 PM

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM

How do you know that we did not have the approval of the Italian Government?

dpierson on May 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM

Yeah what he said!

Remember back when puckiestan “didn’t approve” of the drone attacks?

Joe Caps on May 20, 2009 at 8:04 PM

How do you know that we did not have the approval of the Italian Government?

dpierson on May 20, 2009 at 8:02 PM

The Italian government has stated it was unauthorized and charged the CIA officers with kidnapping. In fact Italy also claims that the CIA had given them phony info that Abu Omar had fled to another country. It’s actually a pretty fascinating look at international spy work–would make a great movie.

Abu Omar is probably a bad guy, but the proper way to go about it is not to run shady black ops missions in Italy. That screwed things up enough they had to release him and caused major tension between the US and Italy. Lose lose.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:06 PM

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Wrong. You might have missed it but the Iraqis have their own government now, the same government which recently reached a SOForces agreement with the U.S.; they control their own country.

Yet American soldiers still conduct ops with the express purpose of grabbing people off the streets who they suspect, for whatever reason, are involved in nefarious activities. It is often done covertly, and for good reason.

You have no idea why the Milan guy was grabbed, you have no idea what was behind it or what the complete operation entailed, it’s why you had to use the word “alleged.” It’s not that hard.

Bishop on May 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Still doesn’t mean that they did not initially have approval. Could just be a face saving move by the government to protect itself after the fact.
Also, the benefits of the constitution are for citizens only, it’s one of the benefits of being a citizen.

dpierson on May 20, 2009 at 8:11 PM

Bishop on May 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM

You’re being dishonest if you can’t tell the difference between US operations in Iraq and Italy.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Why not, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence state that all men are created equal?

What if American citizens were captured by a foreign government and held without charge? Would you be upset? It’s happened before (Iran hostages come to mind) and caused international outrage.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:03 PM

What do you think about the Nuremberg trials? Ex post facto law? Were those former Nazis given the same legal advantages as, say, a New York Mafioso in every particular?

ddrintn on May 20, 2009 at 8:15 PM

You’re being dishonest if you can’t tell the difference between US operations in Iraq and Italy.
jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:12 PM

How so? Is it not kidnapping if an American soldier, acting on nothing more than an anonymous tip, grabs a guy wearing civvies off a street in Baghdad?

Would it make a difference if the guys who grabbed the dude in Milan were soldiers? They might very well have been; SF guys, especially the Delta Force people, are used in covert operations all the time.

So you tell me, how is it not kidnapping in Tikrit?

Bishop on May 20, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Why not, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence state that all men are created equal?

Yes but their actions allow them to be judged inequally.

William Amos on May 20, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Lucky for Bush I guess that Obama hasn’t let the world know that GW released terrorists. Though who knows if they were terrorists before Gitmo, if you kidnapped me and held me without charge in another country for years, I’d probably be pretty pissed at my captors too.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Prove to us all the detainees in Gitmo were “kidnapped” or retract.

Chuck Schick on May 20, 2009 at 8:27 PM

What if American citizens were captured by a foreign government and held without charge? Would you be upset? It’s happened before (Iran hostages come to mind) and caused international outrage.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:03 PM

Were the hostages firing at Iranians in a battlefield as well?

Chuck Schick on May 20, 2009 at 8:29 PM

… but that kind of action should be reserved for extremely high-value targets.

I think Gitmo was a great idea, but it was fouled up because we housed a lot of people there that didn’t belong and didn’t know what to do with them. We still have that problem and there’s no good solution. Being prudent about who we capture in the future could go a long way to prevent future screw ups like this.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM

How is that you know all this stuff?? I mean, throughout this thread, you speak like you have all the answers and all the inside scoop on virtually everything “terrorist”.

You know who is or is not a “high valued” candidate for kidnapping.

You have the intel on each and every prisoner in custody and know who should and should not be there and have inferred that Bush is a liar for stating that it housed only the worst of worst.

You’ve determined that Gitmo is a failure even as Obama considers keeping it open and restarting tribunals.

You’ve suggested that our armed forces need to be more “prudent” when dealing a terrorists.

I’m impressed.

Tell me something:

Most liberals love to bash this country and use its mistakes to justify their existence and continual condemnation, like spoiled teens screaming their hatred at their parents who are just trying their best at the most difficult job in the world.

Most conservatives love this country knowing that it has, is, and will continue to make mistakes yet continually works to better itself.

Where exactly are you in this analogy?

Are you one of those that’s always looking for and/or fabricating injustices to justify your very existence?

Are you offended because you, well, see yourself as morally superior to virtually everyone not aligned with your viewpoint?

And does this all explain why your heart bleeds for the “terrorists” and not the soldiers killed by terrosits?

Do you always assume the worst?

Rod on May 20, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Those are still better odds than finding anyone in the Obama administration that knows what they are doing.

Star20 on May 20, 2009 at 9:17 PM

Obama says terrorists are just friends he hasn’t met yet.

Besides, they share his hatred of every single principal this country was founded upon, our history and our people, so how bad could they possibly be?

NoDonkey on May 20, 2009 at 9:37 PM

So, again, tell me something I do not already know? When has this country, oh, never mind, who really gives a damn about this country.

foxone on May 20, 2009 at 9:55 PM

One in seven? I would have thought more would return to terrorism. What are the others doing, law school?

boko fittleworth on May 20, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Following the Bernardine Dohrn model?

onlineanalyst on May 20, 2009 at 10:09 PM

I’m sure they’ll release it…along with the rest of the Scare Force One pics…transparency!

AUINSC on May 20, 2009 at 10:10 PM

Why not, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence state that all men are created equal? -Jonknee-

You are incredible! So how many protests have you lead against South Africa or Zimbabwe over their White Genocide instead of here trying to claw down the U.S. over the Gitmo terrorists?

And so now we are extending Constitutional Rights to the Whole World? Is it not enough that Reagan set billions free while the Liberals like you called them “Comrades” and enacted “Sister City” legislation with places like El Salvador? Is it not enough that millions were set free under Bush (as much as I thought the man was a squishy liberal) from Saddam and his rape rooms while Liberals flew there to be “human shields” to hurt Military morale?

Piss off.

GunRunner on May 20, 2009 at 10:13 PM

What if American citizens were captured by a foreign government and held without charge? Would you be upset? It’s happened before (Iran hostages come to mind) and caused international outrage.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:03 PM

What if American citizens were captured by their own government and held without charge? Would you be upset then?

It’s happened before (Democrat President throws 100,000+ Japanese-American citizens into detention camps after 12/7).

According to one of those detainees, who was my 6th grade teacher when I lived in Hawai’i at about the same time O’bama claims to have been hatched there, when she and her perents and sisters were rounded up by FDR’s jackbooted thugs, no other country in the world gave a damn.

Del Dolemonte on May 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM

Hey, is Obama going to end the war in 16 months or close Gitmo by the year end like he said, or was he lying?

These DoD leaks are really bad for the O-hole and high level. These may signal the destruction of Obamaland. As the leaks continue, Obambi will try to concentrate power into a smaller and smaller group, which is his pattern. As the paranoia increases, so will the leaks. I can’t wait for the first leaks from his “close staff”. Whee!

GunRunner on May 20, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Del Dolemonte on May 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM

President Bush seemed pretty jazzed up at the idea of sending Padilla to GTMO without trial.

Squid Shark on May 20, 2009 at 10:36 PM

strangelet:

Oh yes, And I am still waiting for those responses from you…

Well if they weren’t terrorists before we tortured them and unjustly imprisoned them, they sure were by the time they came out.

They were not unjustly imprisoned or unjustly tortured, save for perhaps 1 out of a hundred (if that).

They were captured in violation of Geneva, and we have every right to slit their throats and toss them to the sharks if we wished.

But you obviously do not know that, do you?

Why did GW let them go anyways?
Weren’t they supposed to be “safe”?

May I point out that GW put up strong resistance to releasing them, and it was only YOUR Congress and YOUR President who pushed for such measures?

/puts out tongue at Allahp

And nothing better demonstrates your infantile nature than this petty tripe.

I guess I’m surprised it was only 1 in 7.

Same.

Remember, three of them hung themselves rather than be tortured anymore.

A. Proof?

B. And how is that a bad thing?

Allah baby…..they hate you, you know.
You are just one of those pointy headed elites to them.
Are you tired of pretending to be Ed?
Its wearing on you, I can see it.
‘Membah when we used to make up late night haiku about feminists, Glenn Reynolds ears and Kate Bekinsale’s leather catsuit?

Come to the darkside….you know you want to.
Its where you belong.
;)

Proof, and what does this have to do with the topic?

What do you expect?
I’m a stalker.

The truly sad thing is that your crackpot idioticy makes that the most believable thing you have said.

Repeating tripe over and over again does not make it true.

Come back when you can get actual arguments.

jonknee:

Lucky for Bush I guess that Obama hasn’t let the world know that GW released terrorists.

Proof?

Though who knows if they were terrorists before Gitmo, if you kidnapped me and held me without charge in another country for years, I’d probably be pretty pissed at my captors too.

A. Um, perhaps INTELLIGENCE would be able to tell us if they were terrorists before Gitmo?

B. Ah, but how can that be responsible for one’s attacks and murders BEFORE one’s imprisonment (KSM comes to mind).

If there’s no evidence of wrong doing, it’s appalling that they were detained for years on end. Criminal even, when citizens do that it’s called false imprisonment.

This is not a criminal matter, this is war.

Check out FDR and Lincoln’s choices on that matter.

I know it’s hard to believe, but the US went into foreign countries and took people in the middle of the night. Black ops, their families had no idea what happened. The US held these people for years and then sometimes released them. All without a formal charge. That’s textbook kidnapping. Here’s an example:

Oh boo hoo.

Given those circumstances, should the Israelis be punished for their nabbing of Adolph Eichmann from Argentina?

The fact is that war and the aftermath of war are matters where the criminal justice system is completely inadequate to deal with independent of higher and more powerful authority.

Things that were unspeakable in criminal matters become the norm in warfare.

And a few mistakes and tragic cases where the actually INNOCENT were captured or tortured are to be rightfully condemned, but they do not discredit the overall systems or strategy.

Do their training manuals also describe how they can fake photos of the torture and have them be placed in possession of the DoD?

Actually, yes they do.

Ok, not the normal manuels handed out the Azzam the AK grunt from Syria, but their tech guys certainly know their way around such a case.

And may I point out that most pictures are verboten by such operations, and it is usually proof of somebody STEPPING BEYOND THEIR ORDERS, ie Abu Ghrahib (which, BTW, was a few regulars being idiots as opposed to being a CIA/NSA torture house, like some claim).

If Gitmo only houses the hard core, why has the US released so many of them? Doesn’t that seem suspicious?

Given the constant bleating about it from all quarters and the PR pressure, not really.

You don’t see a lot of people leaving our Supermax facilities.

But some do nonetheless.

It is just that they are buried under Gitmo coverage.

When you don’t know when somebody leaves a place, naturally you don’t “see” them.

Perhaps you have a different word for it, but what do you call snatching someone up and holding them for years without charge?

I’m sure I could think of one, but “kidnapping” suffices well enough.

Italy calls it kidnapping, that’s why they are trying to go after the CIA for one of the black ops missions I mentioned:

And if Italy is unwilling to do what is necessary, than they should not complain about it. That is the brutal truth.

Oh, and I suppose you are going to use Spain’s infamous extra-judicial exploits as an example of further rage?

Spare me.

The CIA snatched up an Egyptian citizen in Milan without the knowledge/permission of Italian authorities. It was something right out of the movies–a van rolls up and people in masks hop out and spray chemicals in his face and stuff him into the van.

And guess what? That means NOTHING in this world.

The Argentines were sheltering Eichmann for YEARS afterwards and refused to extradite him. So does that make the snatch-and-grab and subsequent trial (remember, the Israelis probably roughed him up considerably!) invalid?

What do you call that?

What you and I call it is simply a game of semantics of little value to determining the case at hand.

You’re putting words in my mouth and also have no idea what my political agenda is.

Oh, we know some of it (vast restricitons on interrogation, possible elimination of many facets of it) and the rest, we can make educated guesses about.

I do think it’s wrong to go into Italy and kidnap someone only to hold them without charge and end up releasing them.

And I think that it is unpleasant but sometimes necessary, Re: Eichmann. It is undoubtedly true that many have fallen victim to this that should not have, and their suffering is inexcusable, even when understandable.

That being said, you cannot win a war without collateral damage, and you cannot make an omlette without a few eggs getting cracked.

I think the CIA is really good at what they do (I mean they did pull it off after all), but that kind of action should be reserved for extremely high-value targets.

And that is all well and good, but HOW THE HECK DO YOU DEFINE WHAT A “high-value” target is?

Sure, it is Osama Bin Laden, Zarqawi, etc.

But what about their bodyguards, or the person who does laundry for them, who are in and of themselves of little value but can lead to valuable information about much higher-priority targets?

And furthermore, how do we even KNOW if a target fits the descriptions or not?

Remember, these decisions are often made by people working with limited knowledge on the issue on a strict time limit given the knowledge that opportunities do not last forever, and they may never happen again.

So, in the heat of the moment, how do you know if that Egyptian in Milan is a terrorist head honcho, a mere thug, a mere thug who has valuable info, or an innocent?

It is not as easy as one might think.

I think Gitmo was a great idea, but it was fouled up because we housed a lot of people there that didn’t belong and didn’t know what to do with them.

True, but what other alternatives were there? Rendition? That would probably have put them in even HOTTER water (the Egyptians and Chinese are not renowned for their pristine view of defendant’s rights) or had seen them back on the streets (the Saudi and Yemani way of dealing with them).

We still have that problem and there’s no good solution.

There may be a good solution, but we just don’t know what it is.

Being prudent about who we capture in the future could go a long way to prevent future screw ups like this.

Who is to say the Egyptian was a screw up of decision (as opposed to execution AFTER the fact)? Sure, we have the diplomatic issues, but that is independent of his true value as a target, and with the validity of the reasoning at the time.

Only time will tell about that.

It would have been a success if it were a legitimate target. Kidnapping an innocent man makes everyone’s job more difficult and encourages our enemies.

True, but it is worth remembering that decisions such as who to grab are usually made in the equivalent of a split-second in the middle of a dense Fog of War. It isn’t nice and clean, but what are the alternatives? Let a potentially valuable target slip back into the mist just because we cannot be 100% sure?

Life sadly does not operate like that, and if such a target is found to have, oh, detonated a nuke in Warsaw (as an example), we would NEVER hear the end of it, and RIGHTFULLY so.

Except these people aren’t actually charged or tried, just released. Years later in some cases. Yet Bush/Cheney kept saying the only people in Gitmo were the “worst of the worst”. It was a great idea screwed up by poor execution.

True, but we have to house the suspects somewhere on our soil to avoid the devil’s choice of rendition or release to give us time to evaluate the situation and take action, so any alternative plans?

Italy calls it kidnapping.

What Italy (or anybody else on either side of the debate) calls it matters little

He wasn’t charged and was released.

And don’t believe that we COULD have simply concocted a story and never let him see the light of day again.

Many innocents are detained in public jails around the world even in the fairest of legal systems until their culpubility can be ascertained or their innocence pr oven.

It isn’t a nice system, but hundreds of years of history have shown that it is better than the alternatives.

Don’t you see how this could incite anti-American sentiments?

I would be a fool to not. However, that is the cost of doing “business,” like it or not. If we based all of our desicions entirely on diplomatic effects, make no mistake when I say that very little would be done.

Imagine if Saudi Arabia was plucking people off the streets in Miami?

Given the considerable “issues” the Saudi view of “justice” has, their snatch-n-grabs are more likely to be indiscriminate and they are far more likely to have covered up a mistake than we are.

Hell, who is to say we haven’t, or have even delivered a few to them?

Operations in a country that you control are different from operations in a country you do not control.

I will concede that much.

Much like if Italy wants to pull some shady operations in Italy that’s their own business, but if they try it in the US they will catch heat (rightly!).

What are the circumstances of the operation? These, more than anything else, decide the attitude such an operation deserves.

Saddam was taken, the event was publicized and he was turned over to the Iraqis to charge and convict as they saw fit.

…after a lengthy period without charge, with interrogation (god knows of what type), and in US custody.

That, and consider the trial did not give a full overview of the accusations levied against him.

Abu Omarwas taken in an illegal operation, flown around the world and allegedly tortured and then released after four years. It was all covert and didn’t involve a country we were at war with or in control of. They are not similar.

Actually, they are to a far greater degree than I would like. Again, some situations demand a cloak-and-dagger approach, however much we may dislike it.

Why not, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence state that all men are created equal?

A. Many interpretations exist on that sentence, and many that carry vastly different applications. However, it can safely be said that the founding fathers did not believe all men (or women) were created equal in all ways.

B. The Declaration of Independence carries very little to no legal weight as is. The Constitution, on the other hand, does.

What if American citizens were captured by a foreign government and held without charge? Would you be upset?

It depends.

For instance, in Italy (just because it is a convenient topic), anybody arrested is GUILTY until proven otherwise.

And that includes Americans.

It happens almost daily, believe it or not, but we don’t raise a stink unless under very certain circumstances because it has long been accepted that the host nation’s laws are the basis of which any criminal case is prosecuted.

And I suspect much would depend on the actual culpability of said American in the crime s/he was charged with.

It’s happened before (Iran hostages come to mind) and caused international outrage.

That was because, in the middle of a coup, armed militia seized an Embassy (in VIOLATION of International law), held hostage hundreds who clearly had no role in the accusations they were taken under, and at a time when a radical theocracy openly declared war against us.

And THAT is vastly different from quiet snatch-n-grabs in the middle of Milan.

The Italian government has stated it was unauthorized and charged the CIA officers with kidnapping. In fact Italy also claims that the CIA had given them phony info that Abu Omar had fled to another country.

And here is where I ask if anybody can get independent verification on what the Italians are saying. This, if anything, is like a classic “obligatory denial” like what happened when the Berlin Tunnel was found.

Perhaps they are telling the truth. But it is impossible to tell with the data we have.

It’s actually a pretty fascinating look at international spy work–would make a great movie.

True.

Abu Omar is probably a bad guy, but the proper way to go about it is not to run shady black ops missions in Italy.

Well, that depends on the circumstances.

That screwed things up enough they had to release him and caused major tension between the US and Italy. Lose lose.

True, but the alternatives are not all that pretty either.

I’m not saying our current system is perfect or that we don’t do unsavory things, but we are very well trying to win a war on limited info and with small windows of opportunity that we have to take while we can.

Reform is needed, you are correct about that. But the sad and certain truth is that such operations will always exist. Mistakes will always be made. Stinks will always be raised.

But when it comes down to it, it ultimately depends on the results.

Turtler on May 20, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Gibbs isn’t that stupid (I think), but you make the call.

There is nothing that could have preceded this statement and made it true.

Jaibones on May 20, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Obama = Transparency

VibrioCocci on May 20, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Turtler on May 20, 2009 at 10:38 PM

About how long did it take you to write all those responses? Good job!

nazo311 on May 21, 2009 at 12:17 AM

I can honestly say I think Obama will not be blamed/held responsible for every single thing he doesn’t actually do with his own physical hands.

TTheoLogan on May 21, 2009 at 12:42 AM

I can honestly say I think Obama will not be blamed/held responsible for every single thing he doesn’t actually do with his own physical hands.

TTheoLogan on May 21, 2009 at 12:42 AM

I can honestly say that you voted for the half-white man in the Oval orifice.

daesleeper on May 21, 2009 at 12:52 AM

What if American citizens were captured by their own government and held without charge? Would you be upset then?

It’s happened before (Democrat President throws 100,000+ Japanese-American citizens into detention camps after 12/7).

According to one of those detainees, who was my 6th grade teacher when I lived in Hawai’i at about the same time O’bama claims to have been hatched there, when she and her perents and sisters were rounded up by FDR’s jackbooted thugs, no other country in the world gave a damn.

Del Dolemonte on May 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM

Yes, I would be even more outraged if American citizens were held without charge. I am not a Democrat and not a partisan, it makes no difference to me who’s in charge when the US gov’t abuses human rights.

For the record I find the internment of Japanese Americans a sad part of our nation’s history. We were at war with Japan at the time, but it’s still inexcusable.

jonknee on May 21, 2009 at 1:01 AM

For the record I find the internment of Japanese Americans a sad part of our nation’s history. We were at war with Japan at the time, but it’s still inexcusable.

jonknee on May 21, 2009 at 1:01 AM

Germans and Italians were also interned.

Johan Klaus on May 21, 2009 at 1:25 AM

A point about constitutional rights, if y’all don’t mind.

Prior to the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Supreme Court had ruled that only citizens have access to federal courts because the constitution grants access only to U.S. citizens. And that only whites were U.S. citizens.

The name of that case is Dred Scott v Sandford. The political winds of the time caused this explicit statement against blacks to lead to the War Between The States. The Fourteenth Amendment used the word “person” to provide U.S. constitutional protection and citizenship to non-white persons (freed slaves) under both federal and state laws.

The reach of the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to include illegal immigrants or resident foreigners. You can thank the ACLU and similar groups for getting laws passed and court rulings made which enlarged its scope.

Dred Scott is still good law as far as its primary holding – that federal jurisdiction is limited and that standing before the court must exist at the time of filing a suit.

platypus on May 21, 2009 at 1:44 AM

Allah baby…..they hate you, you know.
You are just one of those pointy headed elites to them.
Are you tired of pretending to be Ed?
Its wearing on you, I can see it.
‘Membah when we used to make up late night haiku about feminists, Glenn Reynolds ears and Kate Bekinsale’s leather catsuit?

Come to the darkside….you know you want to.
Its where you belong.
;)

strangelet on May 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM

He couldn’t hang out with such mental midgets as you. Reread your comment. Maybe you’ll notice his resistance.

Also, your attempts at showing us how you have an “in” with AP are puerile. You’re not only dumb as a log, you’re also extremely insecure.

Schadenfreude on May 21, 2009 at 2:13 AM

It only takes ………….

………………… one.

Seven Percent Solution on May 21, 2009 at 2:30 AM

With such a high recidivism rate we should seriously consider implanting a dual tracking/remote detonation device.

moxie_neanderthal on May 21, 2009 at 2:43 AM

I was thinking,,, Obama has these signs he made up to place at all the “work shovel” job sites to show the projects are directly responsible to him.
I think we need signs to place around the country for all the other things that are or will be directly attributed to him.
“This Terrorists Atrocity Brought to You by the Obamo Closing Gitmo Act”
“This Car Dealership Closed by the Obama Takeover of Auto Companies Act”

JellyToast on May 21, 2009 at 7:56 AM

That any government agency holds back a report does NOT hold back the records. It isn’t as if only the Pentagon knows who the detained terrorists are that fly the coup. It isn’t only the Pentagon that has this information regarding “once a jihad terrorist, always a jihad terrorist.”

Post-WWII Americans are no longer the naive folk of former days. Everyone distrusts, no matter, whether liberal, moderate, conservative, educated or ignorant, everyone is distrustful given our experiences. WHAT we distrust most is determined by those experiences as well.

Americans have abruptly realized that there is no news report that isn’t completely tainted. In our human frailty, we welcome what we want to hear, and reject what we don’t like. But in order to survive today, we must read everything and note the figures and check the data including what is left out, what is twisted, and what is only hidden between the lines, before coming over time to a wise conclusion.

There are idiots who refuse to utilize logic who need to be maneuvered, charged via THOUGHT to at least quit impeding national security since unwittingly they are already pawns being maneuvered via wanton foolishness. If they only respond to ridicule as they dish it out, incapable of genuine logic on their own effort, then show them what they are sparing no detail. Dissolve their unity simultaneously from top and bottom.

maverick muse on May 21, 2009 at 8:46 AM

It seems that everybody is afraid of Obama’s wrath except America’s real and potential enemies. That pretty much says it all.

RandyChandler on May 21, 2009 at 8:50 AM

JellyToast on May 21, 2009 at 7:56 AM

“No thanks to Obama”: the face in his 0/null.

maverick muse on May 21, 2009 at 8:55 AM

everybody is afraid of Obama’s wrath except

those with little to lose anyway?
those with everything to lose if they don’t speak up?
Strength in numbers, even if not in unified specific determination, AT LEAST not deaf, mute, and cruel.

Don’t cower before a bully. The whoopin’ won’t feel any better, cowardice certainly instigates the whoopin’ sooner, and you’ll miss every opportunity to defend yourself. Keep eye contact with the opponent, and never let down your guard. ALL opponents have their weaknesses, too. Go figure now, because there’s no getting around looming confrontation forever. Brown shirts, Black shirts, Red Scarfs, Green shirts, cruel perversions NOT to be ignored. They don’t just go away.

maverick muse on May 21, 2009 at 9:06 AM

America’s enemies: Terrorists and those who wish to destroy the American way of life.

The Democrats enemies: Those nasty tea party people

The Republicans enemies: They don’t have enemies, they just want to be the good guys.

It is a sad day when the only real Republicans to stand up are Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. And this is no slam on either man, but rather on the namby pamby moderates that are diluting the party.

What we need to realize is that mealy mouthed politicians like McCain and Graham are not the future for the Republican party.

People want to hear truth, not moderation.

darkmetal on May 21, 2009 at 9:07 AM

Maverick, I simply mean that Obama has cowered many of his fellow citizens and that no one in any real position of power has stood up to him in a meaningful way–not yet. Meanwhile, half the country remains infatuated with BHO and they all have that goofy What, Me Worry? grin at the mention of his name or the entrancing sound of his voice.

[File under the heading Obama Attacks America.]

RandyChandler on May 21, 2009 at 9:23 AM

What gets me is people claim that terrorists deserve to be treated as uniformed soldiers would according to the Geneva Convention. But these same people want to release photos from Abu Grhaib(spelling?). And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Geneva Convention prevent photos of POW’s from being released?

jeffn21 on May 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM

I’ll bet it GW’s fault.

therightwinger on May 21, 2009 at 10:03 AM

I know it’s hard to believe, but the US went into foreign countries and took people in the middle of the night. Black ops, their families had no idea what happened. The US held these people for years and then sometimes released them. All without a formal charge. That’s textbook kidnapping. Here’s an example:

Man,Dude! You say that as if it were a bad thing!

Ah, yes. The ACLU is such an unbiased, neutral source.

Fed45 on May 21, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Why not, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence state that all men are created equal?

What if American citizens were captured by a foreign government and held without charge? Would you be upset? It’s happened before (Iran hostages come to mind) and caused international outrage.

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 8:03 PM

1) You’re arguing that there’s no such thing as citizenship. American laws apply to Americans. If the world agreed to abide by the U.S. Constitution, then maybe you’d be right.

2) The Iranian hostages weren’t trying to commit acts of terrorism. If they had been plotting to kill Iranians, then they would’ve deserved the public beheadings they’d have gotten.

hawksruleva on May 21, 2009 at 11:03 AM

What gets me is people claim that terrorists deserve to be treated as uniformed soldiers would according to the Geneva Convention. But these same people want to release photos from Abu Grhaib(spelling?). And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the Geneva Convention prevent photos of POW’s from being released?

jeffn21 on May 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM

That’s because people who use the Geneva Conventions as a club have never actually read it.

hawksruleva on May 21, 2009 at 11:04 AM

jonknee:

I am waiting for a response.

Turtler on May 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM

The CIA snatched up an Egyptian citizen in Milan without the knowledge/permission of Italian authorities. It was something right out of the movies–a van rolls up and people in masks hop out and spray chemicals in his face and stuff him into the van.

What do you call that?

jonknee on May 20, 2009 at 7:14 PM

A very successful covert operation.

Fed45 on May 21, 2009 at 11:15 AM

I am waiting for a response.

Turtler on May 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM

You seem like a reasonable guy, but I think our difference is that I willingly hold my country to a higher standard. I think we can learn from our mistakes, but to do that we have to actually call them mistakes and hold those responsible to the fire. It’s because I love this country that I care so dearly about what it does in my name. It sounds like you believe in the general goodness of America (as do I!) and as such are willing to ignore its failings (I am not). We are a great country but we can do better. That’s my angle.

Case in point I think looking for legal loopholes to not have to assign prisoners rights is wrong. It may not be illegal, but it’s wrong. This is America, we are the ones that give everyone a fair shake as best we can. Justice will prevail in the end. That goodness will not be reciprocated by our enemies, but that’s not the point. If you’re not better than your enemies then you are part of the problem. I believe founding fathers really did mean what they said too, it’s un-American to deny human rights.

But anyway, thanks for your response. As I said, you sound like a reasonable guy and a patriot at that. I’m not sure if you’ll believe it, but I’d like to think I have both of those qualities as well.

jonknee on May 21, 2009 at 11:31 AM

A very successful covert operation.

Fed45 on May 21, 2009 at 11:15 AM

If it were very successful we would have never known about it. It was very sloppy and as such there are arrest warrants for 20 CIA agents. Needless publicity.

jonknee on May 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM

For the record I find the internment of Japanese Americans a sad part of our nation’s history. We were at war with Japan at the time, but it’s still inexcusable.

jonknee on May 21, 2009 at 1:01 AM

Such hindsight bravery and childish moral superiority from the generation whose hardest decision in life is to supersize or not.

None of us are surprised by your feelings on this so no need to go “on the record”. Just like I am pretty sure you disagree with the dropping of the atomic bomb. Everyone of your political ilk jumps with glee at the chance to question any of America’s past questionable actions. It is simply the next iteration of “I hate my dad” syndrome.

ClassicCon on May 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Remember, three of them hung themselves rather than be tortured anymore.

strangelet on May 20, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Maybe they were suffering depression and remorse for their evil ways and decided to do us all a favor.

riverrat10k on May 21, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Remember, three of them hung themselves rather than be tortured anymore.

strangelet on May 20, 2009 at 6:24 PM

Yeah, because we know that side would NEVER commit suicide to further their cause or propaganda.

I’m SHOCKED it worked so easily on you. Not really…

ClassicCon on May 21, 2009 at 1:05 PM

None of us are surprised by your feelings on this so no need to go “on the record”. Just like I am pretty sure you disagree with the dropping of the atomic bomb. Everyone of your political ilk jumps with glee at the chance to question any of America’s past questionable actions. It is simply the next iteration of “I hate my dad” syndrome.

ClassicCon on May 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM

No, I agree with dropping the bomb. It was a terrible thing, but I think the better of two evils. You have no idea what my “political ilk” is thank you very much.

jonknee on May 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Someone please tell me what’s so terrible about Gitmo that wouldn’t be worse in any US prison. It’s on an island. Great weather. Every terrorist has his own cell. Three squares a day. Prayer five times a day. Medical care. Did I mention the great weather?

For all the terrorist-lovers out there, these guys are bound to get worse treatment and conditions in a US prison – not to mention a golden opportunity to radicalize other prisoners. And provide a nice opportunity for their terrorist-friends on the outside to make whatever communities house the baddest of the bad a likely terror target.

So, why again are we closing Gitmo? To appease France et al and the left-wingnuts?

redfoxbluestate on May 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Someone please tell me what’s so terrible about Gitmo that wouldn’t be worse in any US prison. It’s on an island. Great weather. Every terrorist has his own cell. Three squares a day. Prayer five times a day. Medical care. Did I mention the great weather?

redfoxbluestate on May 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Quite simply the lack of legal rights. The administration didn’t want to follow US law, so they thought by stashing them in another country they could have it both ways. The Surpreme Court stepped in recently to put a stop to that, which pretty much invalidates the entire reason for Gitmo.

jonknee on May 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM

jonknee on May 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM

If you cared about the law, you would arrive at the conclusion that these people do not enjoy any legal protection beyond what the adminsitration choses to give them. Gitmo is manifestly not illegal.

el gordo on May 23, 2009 at 6:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3