Jan 13 2009

As Israel Fights Terrorists, Obama Plans To Free Terrorists

Published by at 9:20 am under All General Discussions

Obama has so far been a major disappointment to the radical left. He has selected a lot of centrist democrats, has left the major players in place at the Pentagon and is dumping his radical liberal policies in the face of a serious economic crisis (even to the point of proposing massive tax cuts). Very few radical liberals are in positions of power. And those that have fancy new titles (like the Global Warming Czar – or Queen of hot air) will probably turn out to be figure heads spouting rhetoric with no progress to be seen.

So what does Obama do to throw the far left a bone? He takes the dumb and risky step of closing GITMO:

President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.

So his first official, high profile act of office will be to free the killers there? We know there will be an uptick in terrorist attacks, they have to send Obama a message (they would do it to whomever was coming in as President). I can tell by the unprecedented security and closing of bridges across the Potomac this inauguration is looking like a celebration under siege. DC is turning into the Green Zone in Baghdad – not a good sign. And certainly not a sign of power and strength.

So what does closing GITMO mean? Where will these killers go?

One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.

“I thought he was trying to manage expectations of how quickly those detainees who remain can be sorted into two categories: those who will be released and those who will be prosecuted,” Ms. Mendelson said.

Here’s the legal rub. Most of these people were arrested on the field of battle. Others were literally kidnapped at gun point where evidence was collected. And of course some where water-boarded (which is done to our fighting forces as part of their training against rough interrogation techniques). There was no torture in the literal sense, but the media blitz has provided a lot of defense ammunition that will drag trials on forever.

As I noted in my Democrat Contract With al Qaeda back in February 2006, the left is still making good on its promises to help our enemies: 

SECOND, We will enact legislation to release all Al Qaeda members now held in custody in the GITMO Gulag, while providing legal counsel to all who have been unfairly detained during this unfortunate international misunderstanding between Al Qaeda and America. We will ensure all detainees have options for bail and parole so they can continue with their life’s efforts while the legal issues surrounding their detention are worked out. Every ex-detainee will be provided the services of an ACLU lawyer.

And who can forget how the other Senator from Illinois – Dick Durbin – compared our US forces detaining these killers to Nazis and other mass murders? Of the original nine promises to al Qaeda I predicted the Dems would enact only a few are still left undone, and efforts have been made across all of them. It is a sad state to watch supposed leaders kow tow to those who killed so many of us on 9-11. But that is the way of the liberal – appeasement at any cost.

This is really a dumb move by a neophyte politician trying to gain acceptance in all corners – no matter how incoherent the actions are. Why does the plight of 248 Jihadist killers warrant the attention of the President, superseding the 100’s of thousands now in harms way on the battle field? Why do these thugs deserve to be the focus of the first act of our new President while many Americans are struggling to survive economically? Why is this more important than any other issue?

Obama is going to be the classic liberal disaster. If his first message is to the detainees in GITMO he has already started off way down the wrong path.

65 responses so far

65 Responses to “As Israel Fights Terrorists, Obama Plans To Free Terrorists”

  1. chrsdelp2 says:

    okay bush and clinton were massive tools, ww2 was a very different war, (hey what about vietnam) , osama may have had something to do with it , if he really did we really would never know, and when the detainees get let out of baby jail.
    Obama wont just let them go, they will go to a intirly different
    facility somewhere else.
    On the other hand if a man strapped with a bomb comes running full force at me when im in the heat of battle,
    These men r out to get us, any way they can and they r willing to die for their cause. Remember the Vietcong in vietnam
    because they may be one in the same. I have hope that we will win this war, the cost is great but this is america we will overcome , thank u for your attention goodbye.

  2. […] next big news was how Obama would close GITMO, leaving terrorist killers to be freed or tried here in the US. I am fairly certain no one was […]

  3. Cobalt Shiva says:

    Nonetheless, that doesn’t preclude latter investigations into whether or not the CIC/POTUS made a decision under those circumstances that was illegal. As I’ve said: let him get in front of a Congressional committe, or a jury, or whatever, and argue it. If the facts are on his side – great.

    So what’s your take on Senators and Representatives who know about it, approve of it, and actually supply funds to do it–but only as long as it’s to their political advantage to do so, and then proceed to pretend that they’re shocked, SHOCKED?

    By my (admittedly layman’s) understanding of the law, if performing those interrogations was criminal, then the Senators and Representatives who did not immediately report the interrogations to the DoJ are guilty of misprision of a felony at a minimum, if not of being an outright accessory (depending on when they were notified and/or whether they assisted in the commission of the felony or felonies in question).

    So when can we expect to see you and conman loudly calling for Daschle, Reid, Clinton, Leahy, Rockefeller, Pelosi, and the rest of (to use William Gaines’ immortal line) “the usual gang of idiots” getting indicted?

  4. GuyFawkes says:

    “So when can we expect to see you and conman loudly calling for Daschle, Reid, Clinton, Leahy, Rockefeller, Pelosi, and the rest of (to use William Gaines’ immortal line) “the usual gang of idiots” getting indicted?”

    Right now. Anyone who knew about this and did nothing to stop it is liable and should be investigated. However, as I said earlier in this very thread:

    “I fully believe that we will never get true investigations into the “torture regime”, precisely because the top leadership of both parties were fully aware of what was going on. Pelosi, Rockefeller, possibly Reid – they all knew what was going on, and raised no significant objections.”

    I realize this may be difficult for some of you to grasp, but I don’t mindlessly defend politicians just because they have a (D) after their name. My loyalty isn’t to a political party – it’s to what’s best for the country.

  5. Redteam says:

    Guy, you continue to amaze me as to how stupid an individual can argue.
    Nonetheless, that doesn’t preclude latter investigations into whether or not the CIC/POTUS made a decision under those circumstances that was illegal. As I’ve said: let him get in front of a Congressional committe, or a jury, or whatever, and argue it.

    So your position is that every decision a CIC makes, he should have to get in front of a committee or jury and answer questions and justify his actions?

    Just how ridiculous do you want to get with that? If he flies on AirForce 1, should he have to justify the expense in front of a committee?

    If he is notified of an incoming ballistic missile, should he first assemble a committee and see if they will all support him if he takes an action to prevent it? would he have to justify the expense of launching an anti-ballistic missile?

    If terrorists capture an airliner and point it toward the Empire State building, does he have to assemble a committee to see if they will support him if he orders it to be intercepted? Wouldn’t want to ‘torture’ those poor terrorists by killing them, would we?

    Both the constitution and Congress have given the President the authority to do what he feels is necessary to defend American citizens. It does not say that he will have to go before a committee and defend his actions. His actions are justified solely on the basis that ‘he took the action he thought was necessary to defend Americans’. No other justification is necessary. That’s what the polling place if for.

    and yes, I knew your post was just above mine, I took that quote from your post. You didn’t answer why you feel like it is okay for you to defend your family, but it’s not okay with you for the President (who is empowered to do so) to defend your family for you.

    Look, I know you want to continue to make an ass of yourself, but please attempt to use one grain of brainpower so that your ignorance and stupidity will not be so obvious. i.e.; quit being a typical liberal.

    Have a good day.