color: SOME SOLDIER'S MOM: Guantanamo Bay and the War on Terror

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Guantanamo Bay and the War on Terror

I am a pretty big fan of Sen. John McCain and was delighted to be moving to a state where he would be one of my representatives in government. I didn't know much about Jon Kyl, the junior senator here, but I am almost giddy after having read a number of pieces and public statements by Senator Kyl (R-AZ). The man holds many of my views and speaks his mind when asked. He holds reasoned positions and is an eloquent advocate of those positions. This guy has got it right. Here's his weekly column for June 20, 2005:

Guantanamo Bay and the War on Terror
By U.S. Senator Jon Kyl

It's important what the rest of the world thinks of the United States. But it's more important that we defend ourselves against terrorists who seek our annihilation. Much of the criticism of our efforts, both international and domestic, is factually wrong and appears to be driven by a partisan hostility to President Bush.

Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. military base where a $150 million facility has been built to house detainees in the war on terrorism, individuals who might better be described as “people who will kill Americans if given half a chance.” At the hearing, Democrats criticized the Bush Administration, alleging that the 520 prisoners are in “legal limbo,” that “there is no plan exactly how they're going to be handled,” that their “rights under the Geneva Conventions have been violated,” and that they deserve some sort of a “trial” or they should be released. A big problem if true, but none of it is.

The detainees at Guantanamo are not in a legal limbo any more than any other prisoners in any other war were in limbo when they were captured. International law allows any nation the right to detain enemy combatants for the duration of a conflict. The primary reason is to prevent them from killing more Americans, and, secondarily, to gather useful intelligence. That's why we are holding these men - they are enemy combatants who were shooting at our troops or otherwise involved in terrorism, and many have information that could help prevent further attacks. We certainly never “tried” captured Nazis or Japanese POWs in World War II (with the exception of a few leaders charged with war crimes) although many were held for years.

The Supreme Court has since ruled that because Guantanamo is under U.S. control, some traditional American legal procedures apply, including the right of each detainee to have his status reviewed. After that ruling, a special commission was established to determine whether, in fact, all of the detainees were enemy combatants, and a number of them were released. We know that at least a dozen went right back to fighting us, because they were subsequently captured again on the battlefield.

Those who remain in detention - a tiny fraction of the 10,000 enemy combatants we have picked up over the past few years - are terrorist trainers, bomb makers, extremist recruiters and financers, bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, would-be suicide bombers, and so forth. Because they indiscriminately target civilians and are not fighting for another particular country, among other reasons, these individuals do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Nonetheless, official U.S. policy is to apply Geneva standards, including access to lawyers, Red Cross visits, and so forth. Every single detainee receives a new review every year to determine whether he still poses a risk. That would seem to be a reasonable standard for a country at war, and surely a credible “plan” for “handling” their cases.

The recent flurry of partisan and international criticism of the handling of Islamic sensibilities at Guantanamo, sparked by a discredited Newsweek report that a copy of the Koran was flushed down a toilet, must have Osama bin Laden rolling with laughter. None of the critics had previously displayed much concern over the abuse of Muslims by other Muslims, as occurs every day in Iraq. The reality is that virtually all prisoners are better fed and cared for at Guantanamo than they have ever been in their lives. They are certainly treated well in comparison to those Westerners taken captive by terrorists in Iraq, who are typically beheaded. A handful of politicians have even raised the idea of shutting down Guantanamo, because of its “negative symbolism.” But as even vociferous critic Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) has conceded, “The question isn't Guantanamo by itself. Obviously, if we're holding people, we're going to hold them somewhere.”

Exactly. Attacking the United States should bring serious consequences, including imprisonment, if we can catch you.

Sen. Kyl serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees and chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee.


At 6/26/2005 10:46 AM , Blogger Jen said...

Thank you for posting this column from Sen Kyl. The round of Sunday news shows today even were lamenting about the so-called abuse of those being held at Gitmo. We never hear the flip side of the argument that contains factual information instead of the lefty slant. Regardless, this was enlightening.

At 6/27/2005 1:26 AM , Blogger devildog6771 said...

I started an award called the "golden a$$" award of which I had a pretty cool [I think] logo of the rear end of a Zeebra [ couldn't find a good picture of an a$$] which is golden. It took quite a bit of work to do it!

Problem is if I awarded it every time a politician ought to be awarded the "Golden A$$" I wouldn't have anything on my blog but the awarding of the "Golden A$$!" I guess you see my problem. I either need to make the "Golden A$$ smaller" or find another logo for properly crediting those politicians [and individuals] who make an "A$$" out of them selves. Otherwise my blog woill look like any typical MSM blog.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home