Guantanamo Bay - The Al Qaida Issue

Oh! What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Who decided to take captives from a warfront and house them in another country? What was the purpose for housing those prisoners at Guantanamo? Those are the questions that were never asked of President Bush. I believe that in the hasty confusion to exact a punishment against those imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay the President, and all of his men, lost track of the big picture and were caught up in a quagmire of their own doings.

The Bush administration has maintained that these individuals are extremely dangerous and must be isolated in such a manner that they can never do us harm again. The Bush administration notes that previously released Guantanamo prisoners have gone back and joined the fight against American troops. They cite at least sixty-one incidents wherein prisoners that were released have become suicide bombers, have been recaptured, or have shown up on video tapes recruiting for the jihadist.

I believe that there is some truth to what is being reported by the troop commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan with regard to the return of released prisoners to combat, but I question if any of this would have been the case if these prisoners had been incarcerated in-country rather than at Guantanamo Bay. I wonder what would have been the outcome had we not been exposed at Al Ghraib? What if we had expeditiously carried out the military tribunals? Obviously the decisions were made by someone positioned to formulate a policy, but the policy, we are seeing now was very flawed.

Al Qaida uses Guantanamo as a badge of honor, a recruitment tool. Those having been there for any length of time are looked upon as having been in the den of the infidels and lived to tell the tale – an exaggerated tale, I am sure. But, why give the enemy additional ammunition to be used against you in the psychological warfare that is always associated with armed conflict. We have created a two-headed monster that will not die no matter what we do from this day forward.

Had the United States proceed with military tribunals against these individuals as originally stated, the matter would have been over… instead, it has drawn on with disastrous propaganda permeating everywhere. In defense of the President, I submit that he had every right to remove the prisoners from the warfront, incarcerate them at Guantanamo Bay, and send them to a military tribunal. The President’s rights can be reviewed from similar incidents, the first being the incarceration and military trial of Germans caught after they had entered the United States during WWII…

The Court first carefully traced the President's power to issue the July 2 order back to the Congressional "war powers" provided in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and the President's executive powers under Article II. It held that the Articles of War were an appropriate constitutional exercise of power by Congress, and fully provided for the trial of enemy spies by miltary tribunal. As a final step, the Court affirmed that the July 2 order was a valid implementation of the Articles of War.

The Court stressed that the procedure being followed was a well-accepted implementation of the universally accepted laws of war:
By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between..... those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
According to the court, unlawful acts of war include "an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property". It noted that the Hague Convention, adopted by the United States in 1909, adopted the pre-existing distinction between lawful and unlawful belligerents, protecting only the former.

Notwithstanding this lawful position, the Bush administration delayed the execution of the Military Tribunals, creating a situation that is to be decided by another President who is either unaware of these statues, or simply does not want to entertain the matter further.

The other example involving the German prisoners of war is put forth in the article Ex Parte Quirin and it details how, with reason, the prisoners were denied Habeas Corpus…

The President, as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, by Order of July 2, 1942, appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try petitioners for offenses against the law of war and the Articles of War, and prescribed regulations for the procedure on the trial and for review of the record of the trial and of any judgment or sentence of the Commission. On the same day, by Proclamation, the President declared that 'all persons who are subjects, citizens or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals'.

It is obvious that the United States was, and is, within its rights to expose the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to military Tribunal. There is a choice… we can free these individuals and reap the havoc as a result of their being used to recruit others to Jihad, or we can just as easily commence the Tribunals and sentence them as would be the discretion of a Military Judge. 

There is another way if we free them; we must extract a solemn oath from them to never again pursue jihad against any government again – to be sworn to in the name of with Allah. No self-respecting Muslim will commit a violation of an oath sworn to in the name of Allah.

In a democracy, silence is not golden; it is condonance in the face of injustices; it is fear, where the thought of reprisal fosters control - Rodney A. Davis

Twin Towers - The Bush Legacy

While I am greatly appalled at the destruction of the Twin Towers, I am also astounded by the circumvention of our system of justice, a cornerstone of the American way, as it is presented to the world by the Bush Administration. We are no better than the President of Zimbabwe if we are to allow this sort of injustice to prevail.

I include this excerpt from an article written by Mr. Horton of Harper’s Magazine which conveys my interest in the outcome of the political travesty that is the imprisonment of a group of men at Guantanamo under such bizarre circumstances.

Sabotage at Gitmo

By Scott Horton, Harper’s Magazine – December 9, 2008

“They warn that if the trials move to federal court, defendants might actually be acquitted (an outcome which they apparently believe can be foreclosed entirely in a military commissions process, which notoriously was the view of Goldsmith’s erstwhile boss, Jim Haynes) or get short sentences. The pair disclose a distinctly low level of confidence in the federal criminal justice system.”

Americans ought to be outraged that the Bush administration did not locate and bring to justice the one person that is deeply responsible for September 11 – Osama Bin Laden. America should be profoundly concerned that the man lodged in the White House, in this case – George W. Bush, having recited the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" has failed to even come close to upholding the Constitution of the United States".

Mr. Bush, as President promised to pursue Bin Laden to the gates of hell if necessary to avenge an American tragedy – he didn’t! He should have tried harder over the eight year period that he was in office to keep his promise to you and me. His promise to get Bin Laden is just another reminder of just how inept he and his administration have been when it comes to the welfare of America. During the Bush-Kerry presidential election, Osama Bin Laden challenged America “saying that the safety of America is not in Bush’s hands, but in the hand of America”. This tape was carried on Al-Jezeera and broadcasted to the free world four days before the election. Many wonder if this was not by design to ensure that Bush gained another four years in office! Surely we can say that we were not protected.

Of late, Mr. Bush has been saying in interview after interview that the intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq was faulty, and as such, should be considered when historians are writing entries into the history books concerning his presidency. Mr. Bush reminds us that Congress voted overwhelmingly to support his decision to invade Iraq. I remember it differently. I remember the skewed and clumsy attempts to present evidence that an educated public could see readily through. I remember the lies that were pressed into the hands of Congress that persuaded them to give carte blanche permission to the ‘Commander-in-Chief to invade another country – contrary to any precedent in American history. With some degree of authenticity we can say that Mr. Bush abused the Constitution.

President-elect Obama is inheriting all of the problems that have been caused by the Bush Administration. Obama is being urged to disregard the Constitution and assume more control of the economy, of the situation in Iraq, of all the things that should be addressed daily by Mr. Bush. There are those that say that Obama is not moving fast enough with his cabinet selections – untrue; he is moving faster than any President- elect before him. Many say that Obama is not keeping promises made during the run up to elections – he is; he continues to adjust to the changing situations in our economy and the many other things that will confront him on DAY ONE.

Mr. Bush is attempting to rush to completion the task of punishing the prisoners at Guantanamo and that will be part of his legacy. All of us should keep in mind that each President has the legal right to readdress anything that his predecessor did. Mr. Obama can pardon, commute, or rescind any part of anything that Mr. Bush has done. In my opinion, the individuals incarcerated at Guantanamo have not been given due process. If they are guilty as charged, then try them, convict them, and send them to prison, but by all means get rid of Guantanamo and the constant reminder of American injustice represented there.