Son-in-law to Osama bin Laden, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, recently convicted of providing and conspiring to provide material support to terrorism and conspiring to kill Americans, in a federal criminal courtroom in New York City, was “the most senior Bin Laden confederate to be tried in a civilian court in the United States since September 11.”
The liberal left were unabashedly gleeful at the conviction, not because justice had been done, but that the trial took place on U.S. soil rather than by Military Commission at the U.S. military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Location, location, location. This mantra is not lost on liberal Islamist apologists who act as though anyone ever held at Gitmo or accused of terrorism should be freed and compensated. This is similar to the 16 British nationals, including Moazzam Begg, who were awarded nearly 1 million pounds sterling each rather then be put on trial, which the British government said would have been “extremely expensive” and may have compromised “national security,” to hell with principle and true justice.
With the conviction of Abu Ghaith, we see repetitive behavior from the Obama administration with relation to giving aid and comfort to the enemy – this time in the form of a federal criminal court which could give him a light sentence and see him free to re-join his released and never caught brothers in years to come.
According to Human Rights First, the U.S. federal criminal courts have “convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism-related charges” since Sept. 11, 2001, yet there are only “over 300 individuals” in federal prisons on terrorism-related convictions.
My question is, where are the other nearly 200 terrorist convicts?
Were they deported? Did they go home? Did they go back to a life of jihad? Are they in your neighborhood?
We know some of the released Gitmo detainees have returned to the battlefield, such as Abu Sufian Bin Qumu, who planned and participated in the Benghazi attack which resulted in the murders of four U.S. personnel, including Ambassador to Lybia, Christopher Stevens. But the statistics on Gitmo recidivism, now at 29 percent according to the Director of National Intelligence, belie a troubling trend; releasing the enemy does not increase our safety.
But because “there is no defined entity responsible for convicted and released terrorists,” no one knows how many of these released federally convicted terrorists have gone back to the fight, have turned over a new leaf, or are living in your neighborhood waiting for the next call from Allah to strike.
This is the epitome of left liberal Islamist apologist Pagan humanist utilitarian sentiment towards the enemy in the Global War on Terror.
Logic says that the number of terrorists caught represents only a tiny percentage of all terrorists. Imagine then if you will that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the living of the two brothers who set off the bombs in last year’s Boston Marathon massacre, had not been caught. Let’s say he was still out there on the loose, plotting his next attack.
How “safe” would you feel if you were a Boston resident knowing this accomplished terrorist was free? How safe would you feel living ANYWHERE if Tsarnaev were free?
How do you feel about nearly 200 federally convicted terrorists that are now on the loose, legally? How about the 170-plus recidivists from the over 600 released Guantanamo Bay detainees?
Say what you want about Gitmo, or our federal prisons, but none of the Gitmo detainees or federal terrorism convicts have been executed, beheaded, hacked-to-death, blown up or dragged naked and lifeless through the streets, like those of us they have caught or targeted with planes, bombs, explosive belts, vests or long knives and meat cleavers.
The fate of the likes of Daniel Pearl, Wall Street Journal reporter beheaded by Khalid Sheik Mohammad while being filmed on video, is an example of the barbarity of the Islamists who want us all dead, and are the opposite of remorseful. In fact, they consider beheading or hacking to death of “infidels” to be a religious prerogative and duty, such as revealed in the statements made by the assailants of murdered British soldier, Lee Rigby, admitting they were “Soldier[s] of Allah,” and that Rigby’s murder was “an eye for an eye.”
So-called human rights organizations, leftist Islamist apologists, and others who believe the U.S. must be a “beacon” for human rights don’t like to talk about the Daniel Pearl’s, the Lee Rigby’s or other victims of terror. They only want to discuss how “proud” they are that “justice” was done in the U.S. criminal courts.
They don’t care about how many convicted terrorists have been released, or about how many Gitmo detainees have been released and then have returned to the battlefield, because that would ruin their fantasies about righteous humanism, which is more devoid of moral foundation than had the September 11 terrorists.
We are not dealing with jaywalkers here, or even bank robbers. We are dealing with hard, cold, calculating murderers who have declared war on western civilization, making themselves unlawful combatants.
It’s not that the Taliban and al Qaeda can’t afford uniforms of their own, it’s that they CHOOSE to not let you see them coming. The Geneva Conventions were written to protect innocent civilians and property in time of war, not to protect those who PRETEND to be civilians in order to MURDER them. They are attacking overtly and covertly in an effort to TERRORIZE “non-believers” into accepting Sharia Law, and those who oppose them are better off dead. Simply, they are terrorists and should be tried in military commissions, not federal criminal courts.
How comforting is it to hundreds of the enemy that they are released to fight again, and to perhaps run off to a place like where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was found, in your own backyard?
I am the author of “Saving Grace at Guantanamo Bay: A Memoir of a Citizen Warrior,” and three times mobilized U.S. Army Reserve Major (Retired). Twitter: @mjgranger1
“How “safe” would you feel if you were a Boston resident knowing this accomplished terrorist was free? How safe would you feel living ANYWHERE if Tsarnaev were free?” I’m sorry, but this sounds more like a Prosecution summation than something that should appear in a news article when it references a case yet to be tried. Have we crossed the line to trial by media? Guilty or innocent (and currently pleading not guilty), Tsarnaev is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. With respect, I can’t help but wonder if, In view of these legal considerations, this paragraph seems a little out of line.
I appreciate you taking the time and effort to respond to my blog. I am not a paid reporter, but a volunteer opinion contributor to TheBlaze. I re-post my contributions to my blog 24 hours after they appear on TheBlaze website. So, my opinion is that Tsarnaev should be tried in a military commission, not a federal court. We are at war (a Global War on Terror) with unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us, and Tsarnaev fits the bill. Ironically, if he were to be remanded to our fine military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and then tried in the military commission there, according to the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (Obama, Holder), he would be entitled to virtually the same legal privileges as you or I would enjoy in a federal court of law, i.e., presumption of innocence, conviction standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. In 1942 eight German sabateurs were caught dry foot on U.S. soil. They were out of uniform and carrying materials, supplies and plans to destroy U.S. property and kill U.S. citizens. Two of the eight informed on the other six and so were spared the eventual fate of electrocution for violating the Geneva Convention and Law of Land Warfare. Their biggest mistake was not wearing uniforms. Within about six weeks they were captured, denied habeas corpus, tried by military commission, convicted and then six were executed. No one was hurt by the saboteurs. No buildings were damaged. They simply didn’t play by the rules, and so were subject to the laws governing war. The Geneva Conventions were written to protect innocent civilians and property during war, not to protect those who PRETEND to be civilians in order to murder them.More than 600 Gitmo detainees have been released since 2002, and over 170 are documented recidivists (29%), including bin Qumu, the mastermind of the Benghazi massacre. Tsarnaev should be at Gitmo in my opinion, and even though the current MCA favors him as opposed to the German saboteurs back in 1942, I believe his fate should be the same as the six executed saboteurs. But, that’s just me.
I’m afraid your argument simply fails to hold together. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an American citizen and is therefore not subject to military law.
Nice try, but throughout history U.S. citizens have been tried in U.S. military commissions. Their status is determined by the circumstances of their apprehension and subsequent charges. If they are identified as enemy combatants, unlawful combatants, traitors, mercenaries, etc., they can certainly be tried in military commissions. Lincoln had them for U.S. citizens during the Civil War, and even denied U.S. citizens habeas corpus protections. Spying, fighting for an enemy who does not comply with the Geneva Conventions can land you in a military commission, where Tsarnaev belongs.