The news that three inmates at Guantánamo Bay hanged themselves should not have surprised anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the twisted history of the camp that President Bush built for selected prisoners from Afghanistan and antiterrorist operations. It was the inevitable result of creating a netherworld of despair beyond the laws of civilized nations, where men were to be held without any hope of decent treatment, impartial justice or, in so many cases, even eventual release.
This is disgusting. When such concern for murderous scum ranks such importance in the editorial board's collective mind, I have to wonder if they remember what happened in their city back in 2001. 9/11 may have changed everything--but for some people only for a little while.
These are the scum who committed suicide:
Ali Abdullah Ahmed, the Yemeni, was a mid- to high-level al Qaeda operative with links to principal al Qaeda facilitators and senior membership, according to information released by DoD. Throughout his time at Guantanamo Bay, Ahmed was noncompliant and hostile to the guard force, and he was a long-term hunger striker from late 2005 to May 2006. Ahmed had been formally recommended for continued detention in Guantanamo Bay.
Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi al-Utaybi, a Saudi, was a member of Jama'at Tabligh, a militant recruitment group for al Qaeda and other jihadist terrorist groups, according to the DoD release. Jama'at Tabligh has been used by al Qaeda to cover travel throughout the world and has been banned in Saudi Arabia since the 1980s. Utaybi had been recommended for transfer to another country for continued detention in that country.
Yassar Talal al-Zahrani, a Saudi, was an actual front line fighter for the Taliban who had traveled to Afghanistan to take up arms against anti-Taliban forces, according to the release. Zahrani facilitated weapons purchases for Taliban offensives against U.S. and coalition forces. He was captured by Afghan forces and participated in an Afghan prison uprising in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, that resulted in the November 2001 death of CIA officer Johnny Michael Spann.
And the Times editorial board cries for them, denying they have decent treatment or justice! And why they must be eventually released is beyond me. Of course, this editorial should not have surprised anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the twisted history of the Times editorial board. Screw them.
I will repeat my question: What do you call three dead jihadis in Gitmo?
Answer: A good start.
Save your tears for the victims of these thugs and display at least a fleeting familiarity with humanity by wanting to stop them from killing more of us. We treat the scum well enough, if you ask me.
UPDATE: The Navy commander of the Guantanamo task force gives his view of the need for Gitmo, the service of our military guarding the prisoners, the conditions of the prisons, and the nature of the enemy held there. His conclusion:
The U.S. government remains committed to not detaining any person any longer than is absolutely required. We are, in fact, outright releasing or transferring detainees to their home countries and other nations willing to accept them. In my reading of history, simply releasing enemy combatants during the course of an ongoing war is unprecedented.
Despite articles written by defense attorneys and young translators arguing the contrary, these are, in fact, dangerous men in our custody. Make no mistake about it--we are keeping enemies of our nation off the battlefield. This is an enormous challenge. These terrorists are not represented by any nation or government. They do not adhere to the rules of war. That said, we treat them humanely, in full compliance with all laws and international obligations.
The young Americans serving here in Guantanamo are upholding the highest ideals of honor and duty in a remote location, face to face with some of the most dangerous men on the planet. Your readers should be proud of them. I am proud to be their commander.
But the Times would rather believe our enemies and detractors. Just when does the entire Times go behind that firewall?
ANOTHER UPDATE: Not content to go to bat for the scum, the Times (tip to Power Line) lets one of the beasts speak for himself.
Oh, and the op-ed was translated from French. So really, how can you blame the New York Times for publishing it? Anti-American and written in the language of love? Even Maureen Dowd can't manage that!
