Looks like President Obama is waking up to some harsh realities.
Earlier this week the President announced he would not be sending any Guantanamo Bay detainees home to Yemen, an impoverished Arab country that has emerged as a hotbed of terrorist activity. The would-be Christmas Day bomber had recently spent time there and Said al-Shihri, a former Guantanamo Bay inmate, had bombed the U.S. embassy there after his release in 2008.
The close date for Guantanamo has also been pushed off until 2011.
Good calls here.
These decisions suggest President Obama does not want to see any more Islamist terrorist attacks during his term, and that he recognizes the link between common sense security measures and security.
Many including this commentator have feared his dedication to principles espoused by the hard left might trump his pragmatism. But these are hopeful signs that, as an intelligent and practical man, he recognizes the need for common sense in dealing with terrorism.
Hold that line, Mr. President.
3 Comments
Interesting developments.
Of course, closing Guantanamo does not mean that the all of the detainees would be released.
There seems to me to be two distinct issues 1) the placement and/or incarceration of the detainees, and 2) whether Guantanamo will serve as a future holding facility for the detainees which continue to be held. The media keeps on confusing these two issues and often treats them as one and the same.
Recent events have made it clear that the Yemen based “enemy combatants” are a greater threat than the prior administration anticipated, given their troubling terrorist recidivism rate. Unlike prisoners of war from WWII, a relatively high percent of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay appear ready to take up arms against the US upon release.
In addition, other countries have shown that they will release the detainees shortly after receiving them.
The close date for Guantanamo has also been pushed off until 2011.
Welcoming news for most Americans.
It looks increasingly likely that most of the detainees held at Guantanamo will be held either in that facility or another US controlled facility for good many years to come.
If so, one has to wonder why they could not simply continue to be held at the current Guantanamo facility. Is there something inherent in the Guantanamo Bay facility which makes it a bad choice to hold detainees?
After much controversy, the security firm Blackwater changed its name to Xe:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Blackwater/story?id=6873331&page=1
Perhaps we could do the same thing with Guantanamo Bay by simply re-branding the facility and save the taxpayers a good deal of money.
That is a good idea, Erik B. Perhaps we could re-name Guantanamo, “The Happy Landing” or “Chock Full O’ Nuts Theme Park” or simply, “The Beach!”
That is a good idea, Erik B. Perhaps we could re-name Guantanamo, “The Happy Landing” or “Chock Full O’ Nuts Theme Park” or simply, “The Beach!”
Thanks. The new rebranded names are always 1) much longer, 2) politically correct, 3) ambiguous and 4) positive so as not to stigmatize the inhabitants.
As an example, prisons are now called “Correctional Facilities.”
Guantanamo Bay could be renamed the “Caribbean Reeducation and Empowerment Facility.”
Post a Comment