Al Qaeda’s “Goebbels” to Be Released From Gitmo

He wore no swastika on his arm or skull and crossbones on his cap, but if ever there were an Al Qaeda “Goebbels,” Faiz Mohammed Ahmed al Kandari is him. Captured in December of 2001, while leading Al Qaeda fighters out of the Tora Bora section of Afghanistan into Pakistan, was a religious advisor to Usama bin Laden, and has spent the last 13 years of his life at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Kandari, Kuwaiti citizen, is a religious leader, Al Qaeda recruiter and fighter, was a known associate of bin Laden. He is also known to be a university trained student of Islamic Studies (Sharia Law), and applied this knowledge when producing multi-media recruiting materials that included the success of the attacks of 9/11/01 in his appeals for young recruits to join the fight against the infidels. He indoctrinated Al Qaeda fighters, and spread the word of jihad, issuing fatwas even from Gitmo.

Surely, he would have made a great Nazi.

Why then, is his time at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, coming to an end?

The Daily Caller announced that he is slated for return to Kuwait, stating that “The [Periodic Review] Board determined the detainee’s threat can be adequately mitigated by the Kuwaiti government’s commitment to require and maintain the detainee’s participation in a rehabilitation program and to implement robust security measures to include monitoring and travel restrictions.”

Imagine if Joseph Goebbels, once named Reich Chancellor by Hitler himself before his suicide, had been captured and then, instead of being tried and then executed for war crimes, had been subsequently released to a German rehab program, promising to be good from now on?

As it was, Goebbels committed suicide, just as did his evil role model, Adolph Hitler. If only Kandari had been so bold he could have saved 13 years of incarceration. Apparently, his patience has paid off.

Obama era detainees, some of the “worst of the worst,” have been released for some of the most incredible reasons. The famous Taliban Five, known leaders of the Taliban, were released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, a U.S. Army soldier who walked away from his post in Afghanistan, came under Taliban control and was later accused of desertion.

How much longer will the American people tolerate this indignity and treason?

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution defines treason this way:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

What part of this repeated exchange or release of known enemies is not treason?

Gitmo is neither corrections nor punishment, it is simply detention.

During WWII the U.S. held over 400,000 lawful combatant POW’s without one call for extra-legal privileges or trials for them. Why? The Geneva Conventions and Law of Land Warfare (Army FM 27-10) do not call for trials unless POW’s or unlawful combatant detainees (spies, saboteurs) were accused of war crimes. Captured soldiers who followed the rules were simply held “until the end of hostilities,” and then repatriated to their country of origin.

So too, should unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us be incarcerated, “until the end of hostilities.”

Human rights groups and Islamist apologists cry “foul,” saying keeping detainees incarcerated “indefinitely” and “without charge” is unfair and “un-American.”

In fact it is VERY American to hold detainees until the end of hostilities. After the First Gulf War, U.S. forces held tens of thousands of lawful combatant Iraq soldiers who surrendered en mass rather than face the wrath of the world’s finest fighters. This was a smart move that kept them alive and fed until the end of combat activities in Operation Desert Storm – which lasted only ten days.

As per the Conventions, only days after the end of the conflict, Iraqi POW’s began to be repatriated.

What’s different now is that there are no lawful combatants being held at Gitmo. Captured for their intelligence value potential instead of being shot on the battlefield, all unlawful combatants being held at Gitmo are lucky to be alive.

U.S. forces do not train to run gulags or concentration camps. We train to provide detention and POW operations in war. So, when then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld told us in 2002, to treat Gitmo detainees “within the spirit of the Geneva Conventions,” he was making a two-fold statement. One, we recognize their legal status cannot be that of Prisoner of War because they did not follow the Geneva Conventions. And two, we will treat them with dignity and respect, within the spirit of Geneva, because we are the benevolent good guys.

“No one does [detention operations] better than the United States,” so said International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) physicians I worked with at Gitmo in 2002, and then later at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, after the abuse scandal there in 2005.

The current nonsense about closing Gitmo and moving the remaining detainees to the United States aside, it is treasonous at worst and pure folly at best to release any of them at this point.

As if by Miracle Grow, Islamists have become healthy and robust globally because of our lack of leadership and commitment in the Global War on Terror.

We must, like the Crusaders of Old Europe, and the Americans of the Barbary Wars, rise up in order to defeat the surging forces of evil that would destroy us.

Until all Islamists are dead, or no longer have the will or means to kill us we must defend ourselves. Gitmo is a small price to pay in that essential effort.

Advertisements

Ash Carter and the Bad Guys

If you were U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and were asked to certify release packets for 52 of the “worst of the worst” unlawful combatant Islamists, what would YOU do?

Sec. Carter must certify that these detainees, still being held at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are not a threat to re-enter the Global War on Terror.

The administration of Barack Obama is already in a 30 percent recidivism deficit when it comes to released detainees rejoining the fight, but that’s only the 200 or so repeat jihadi’s we KNOW ABOUT.

663 detainees have been released from Gitmo, none have been executed, beheaded, hacked to death, blown up, dragged naked and lifeless through the streets or BURNED ALIVE. Yet the White House continues its story that maintaining the military detention facility at Gitmo is a “recruiting tool” for the bad guys.

What bad guys?

The President can’t even bring himself into reality by NAMING the threat: Islamists, jihadis, unlawful combatants.

He will drone them, even those who are American citizens, sure as you please.

He doesn’t want to CAPTURE them, although the coalition has captured its first Islamic State member (that we know of), and has sequestered him somewhere in Iraq. Here we go again.

Months ago, during a raid on high level Islamic State member Abu Sayyaf’s compound in Syria, the U.S. captured the man’s wife, Umm Sayyaf, but since then not a peep on her status (detainee, POW, protected person, war criminal?), or on her whereabouts.

By the way, do we really know where the Taliban Five are? Exchanged for U.S. Army soldier and suspected deserter, Bowe Bergdahl and promised to be let go after one year of captivity, these five high value detainees are nowhere on the radar screen.

Smelling something rotten yet?

Dealing with Obama and the War on Terror is like taking your perfectly good automobile to a dishonest mechanic for an inspection. As sure as there is morning dew on spring grass in Kentucky, they will find SOMETHING wrong with that car. And usually not one thing, many things, that cause you consternation and lots of money.

In Obama’s case, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is a foreign language.

We’ve heard the excuses, “recruiting tool,” “not who we are,” and now, according to Lisa Monaco, Homeland Security Advisor to President Obama, “This is not something the president wants to turn over to his successor.” As if Obama gave a rat’s rear end about his successor, “Killery” Rodham Clinton, or no.

Currently, beyond the Secretary of Defense’s dilemma, there is squabbling in Washington over just exactly WHERE to put these bad guys within the Continental United States.

Remember trying to fix a car that ain’t broke? Well who in Congress do you think wants to deal with the folks back home about why they picked their neck of the woods to put the most serious of bad guys? That’s right, NOBODY.

“Not in my backyard” has a very special meaning when talking about Gitmo detainees.

One of the best reasons we chose Gitmo in the first place was its seclusion and security.

Think about it, communist country, island, U.S. Marines on the perimeter overlooking a mined free-fire zone, bay waters and beyond patrolled by the U.S. Navy AND the U.S. Coast Guard, electronic surveillance below, on top and above, helicopter and fighter jet coverage, satellites; it just gets silly how safe and secure the place is.

No hope of escape is a powerful psychological tool with regard to convincing these guys that unless they cooperate they will NEVER be released. What hurts is that most of them have been released, which wouldn’t be a big deal if they weren’t all prone to repeating what got them there in the first place – waging holy war on anyone not like them.

So, back to poor Mr. Carter. Be careful what you wish for.

The Secretary of Defense, in his confirmation hearing, said he would resist pressure to release Gitmo detainees who did not meet the release criteria.

The President is asking him to not only release a few of the least potentially dangerous detainee left there, but ALL of the remaining detainees deemed by his hand-picked panel to be eligible for release.

The rules have changed so much that what was first basketball is looking more and more like baseball!

Just over 73 years ago the U.S. executed unlawful WWII combatants. Eight German saboteurs were captured dry foot on U.S. soil (Long Island, New York, and Florida). Within about five weeks they were denied habeas corpus rights, tried by military commission and then six of the eight were executed by electric chair.

Oh, and none of the eight ever hurt anyone or damaged any property. They simply broke the Law of War and Geneva Conventions and then were prosecuted as war criminals (spies). They weren’t wearing uniforms and had plans and the means to kill and destroy military and civilian targets. Case closed.

But the current dilemma is a manufactured problem, and just like a dishonest mechanic, the Obama administration is looking at Gitmo as pure profit in the political arena. Although Gitmo is legal, ethical, moral and still the best place for unlawful combatant Islamists who want to kill us, Obama and company are treating it matter-of-factly to the point of absurdity.

Clifford Sloan, the former Special Envoy for Guantánamo Closure at the State Department, recently told The Daily Beast. “We should promptly transfer all of those approved for transfer, and, once we do that, the entire process of closing Guantánamo will be far more manageable.”

What about the REASON we opened Gitmo in the first place? Does ANYBODY remember 9/11/2001?

Tell me then, why are we still releasing those who could have been lawfully killed on the battlefield?

Hold your ground, Mr. Carter, lest your legacy be that of the one who authorized the release and certified the false civility of the next 9/11-style jihadi.

Judge Contradicts Obama’s Declaration of the End to the War on Terror

United States District Court Judge Royce L. Lamberth, in his decision dated July 30, 2015, in the case of Mukhtar Yahia Naji Al Warafi vs. Barack H. Obama, et. al., denied Warafi’s petition challenging the legality of his incarceration at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Warafi’s argument rested solely on his assertion that because President Barack Obama had declared hostilities over and the war in Afghanistan ended, that he was no longer legally in conflict with the United States and therefore must be freed.

In his speech, on December 15, 2014, Obama said, “[t]his month, after more than 13 years, our combat mission in Afghanistan will be over,” and that “[t]his month, America’s war in Afghanistan will come to a responsible end.”

Judge Lambreth reasoned that the President alone is not the only source of fact that determines whether or not a thing is true. His speeches are not law, nor are they solely conclusive. “Using all relevant evidence [is] the Court’s responsibility [in determining] the objective existence or nonexistence of active hostilities,” she wrote in her opinion.

The judge reminded Warafi, who has been kept in detention at Gitmo since after his capture on the battlefield in Afghanistan in November, 2001, that his “detention is lawful under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force.”

The AUMF provides:

“[t]hat the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of International terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The judge points out that “when it expires or how it may be revoked is left unsaid.”

In Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, the judge points out, it was affirmed that when Congress authorized the AUMF that that authorization included “authority to detain for the duration of the relevant conflict.”

“The court concludes that active hostilities continue,” wrote the judge.

The mainstream media will no doubt ignore this fresh decision contradicting the President’s mantra that all is well in the world, and that there is no such thing as a Global War on Terror nor Islamist terrorists bent on killing us all.

Head-in-the-sand Obama apologists will not get a pass on this from me.

Too much American blood and treasure have been spilt and spent on protecting us from Islamist murderers. And what’s more, the murdering continues.

Why does it take a U.S. District Court judge to tell us all what is plainly true: there are bad guys out there who are still doing everything they can to kill us.

Further, the implication of her reasoning still gives credibility to the notion that we should be keeping detainees at Guantanamo Bay, not releasing them.

If hostilities have not ended, and we are still at war with “nations, organizations or persons” who wish to do us harm, then we need a place to keep those whom we capture in this effort.

The best, safest and most secure place for this is Gitmo.

Although not explicitly covered in Judge Lamberth’s decision, she has firmly closed the door on any rational thought behind the misconceived notion that Gitmo should be closed.

There is no wiggle room here.

The judge’s decision that the War on Terror is alive and well, and that those who wage that war on us may still be lawfully detained, is another nail in the lid on the coffin of Obama’s campaign promise to close the most famous U.S. military prison in history.

OBAMA SIDES WITH TERROR

Every American should ask themselves this question: “Do I feel safer with detainees IN or OUT of Guantanamo Bay?

If your answer is “IN” then you need to immediately contact your Congressional representatives and demand the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, remain open, and that President Barack Obama stop releasing and transferring detainees IMMEDIATELY.

The cost of letting unlawful combatants in the Global War on Terror loose is too steep.

Liberals ask, “shouldn’t we free those detainees ‘cleared’ for release?” I say the time for that is long past. There was a time to let those less significant Islamist minions go.

While I worked at Gitmo as the ranking U.S. Army Medical Department officer with the Joint Detainee Operations Group, Joint Task Force 160, from February to June 2002, I was part of a mission to return the very first detainee back to his country of origin.

President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015, in Washington. Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, listen in the background. (AP Photo/Mandel Ngan, Pool)

Abdul Razeq was a 25-year-old Afghan detainee who was collected on the battlefield in the fall of 2001. Rezeq told me that he picked up an AK-47 and fought with the Taliban in order to support his heroin habit. Razeq was also diagnosed schizophrenic.

It took us time to figure this out when Rezeq first arrived to Gitmo. His behavior was so bizarre that we nicknamed him “Wild Bill.” He hung things from his genitals, took bites out of his flip-flops, yelled obscenities indiscriminately and was generally unpredictable and potentially dangerous to himself and others.

This behavior was consistent with a non-medicated schizophrenic and cold turkey withdrawal heroin addict. Razeq was questioned, counseled and cared for. Eventually it was determined that he was no longer a threat to the United States nor of any intelligence value. Razeq was going home.

Once back in Afghanistan, Razeq was hospitalized and then interviewed by Newsweek, saying in response to the question, “How were you treated by your American captors,” he said, “They only once tied my hands. They gave us good food three times a day and biscuits for supper. They were trying to keep us in good health.”

Razeq’s story is unique, but there were other detainees with similar stories over the past 13 years that also resulted in release. I think most Americans can understand that, but it’s a much different ballgame now.

The Abdul Razeq’s of Gitmo are long gone, perhaps recidivists, perhaps not, but the release of KNOWN LEADERS of Islamist groups has no grounding in common sense. The high-risk detainees released by President Obama shock the senses of the average American, and closing Gitmo should be off the table.

Gitmo is in fact the finest military detention facility on earth. The Islamist equivalent is a PILE of HEADS. International Committee of the Red Cross physicians I worked with at Gitmo told me, “no one does [detention operations] better than the United States.”

In this pool photo, reviewed by the U.S. military, and shot through glass, a guard watches over Guantanamo detainees inside the exercise yard at Camp 5 detention facility at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba, May 31, 2009. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Over 630 detainees have been RELEASED from Gitmo, and NONE of them have been executed, beheaded, hacked to death, blown up or dragged naked and lifeless through the streets, all things our enemies have done to our allies or us.

There may be 30 percent known or suspected recidivists amongst those released detainees, but I’m more concerned about the 70 percent of released detainees we DON’T know about, especially the moderate to high risk fellows.

Human Rights First claims there are about 500 terrorists who have been convicted in U.S. Federal courts since Sept. 11, 2001, but only just over 300 convicted terrorists are serving time in U.S. federal prisons. Where are the other 200 CONVICTED TERRORISTS? Are they alive and well in Paris? Dearborn, Michigan? YOUR neighborhood?

Admitted Al Qaeda convict, Ali Saleh Mohammad Kahlah al-Marri was recently released by the Obama administration and then returned to Qatar. Marri was a close associate of Kahlid Sheik Mohammad, the Sept. 11, 2001 mastermind currently held in Guantanamo Bay, waiting for his war crimes trial. Marri was transferred from military to civilian custody after Obama took office in 2009. His case was reviewed and then he plead guilty to one charge of criminal conspiracy. Now he is free.

Remember the five Taliban leaders released by Obama in exchange for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl? They were also released to Qatar. WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

Recent Islamist attacks in Paris, Australia, Canada and in New York City are not “lone wolf” incidents, as the mainstream media and Obama would like for you to believe. They are part and parcel of the Islamist offensive against anything that stands in their way of total world domination.

A hooded demonstrator is seen at a protest calling for the closure of the Guntanamo Bay detention facility infront of the White House on May 18, 2013 in Washington, DC. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Hyperbole? Don’t take my word for it. Take them at their word.

Establishing the current Islamist caliphate in Syria and Iraq is only the first step. A world-wide jihad, or holy war, is being waged in an unconventional way. From a hatchet attack on the streets of New York (not against innocent civilians, but against uniformed police), to an assassination of a Canadian military guard, these perpetrators are responding to a call to jihad devised and directed by Islamic State leaders, some of whom are former Gitmo detainees.

President Obama said in his State of the Union address that the United States has a “profound commitment to justice,” that the cost of incarcerating each detainee is $3 million per year, and that our enemies continue to use Gitmo as a recruiting tool.

The only recruiting tool our enemies will ever need is Sept. 11, 2001.

As for cost, what is the cost paid by the victims of terror and their loved ones, past, present and future compared with keeping unlawful combatants who want to kill us in Gitmo? And our commitment to justice is in tact, as we follow the Geneva Conventions and Law of Land Warfare with regard to detention operations. Not to mention the Military Commissions Act of 2009, crafted by Eric Holder and President Obama, gives virtually the same rights you or I would enjoy in Federal court to Gitmo detainees accused of war crimes.

According to the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare even lawful combatant prisoners of war may be held without charge “until the end of hostilities.” Last time I checked the War on Terror was alive and well and living in Paris, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Canada, Australia, the U.S.

If you don’t admit you have a problem you cannot begin to resolve your problem. The president unilaterally declared the War on Terror OVER in 2013, therefore, if there is no war, there can be no ENEMY. If there is no ENEMY then all Gitmo detainees must be VICTIMS and deserve their FREEDOM, right?

To put it simply, if Obama were the jailer in a game of Capture the Flag and let captives go his teammates would beat him up. Is Congress up to the task? If not and Obama succeeds in closing Gitmo, there can be no question that he sides with terrorists.

Force-Feeding Gitmo Detainees is Legal, Moral and Ethical

Recently, U.S. Federal District Court Judge, Gladys Kessler, found in favor of a motion filed by attorney’s for Gitmo detainee Abu Wa’el Dhiab who asked that the intubation to keep him healthy and alive be stopped.

Why? The detainee’s attorney and liberal left, Islamist apologists say that force-feeding violates international law and “could amount to torture.” Although the judge stopped short of using the “T” word, she described force-feeding as “a painful, humiliating and degrading process.”

I was present when the very first two detainees at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were force-fed back in early 2002.

Not only weren’t these self-starving unlawful combatants not eating, they were also not drinking anything. A person can go for several weeks without eating before killing themselves or causing irreparable organ damage, but if a person were to go without drinking for just a few days there would be no turning back once vital organs, such as the kidneys or liver, shut down.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 24:  Supporters of closing the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base detention facility hold signs and pictures of prisoners being held at the facility while sitting in the audience during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee July 24, 2013 in Washington, DC. The committee heard testimony from a panel of witnesses on 'Closing Guantanamo: The National Security, Fiscal, and Human Rights Implications.' Credit: Getty Images

The military medical Standard Operating Procedures at Gitmo (which I helped write for the detainee mission) mentioned nothing about thirst strikes. We hadn’t thought about it. We only had protocols in place for a hunger strike. So when two hunger strikers were identified as having not had anything to drink for two days we performed an intervention, Gitmo style.

No, we didn’t waterboard them and say “suck it in!”

We appealed to their sense of religion first, if they had any. The detainees claimed to be Muslims, so we approached them with the Navy Muslim chaplain assigned to detainee operations, who spoke with the detainees through an interpreter about Allah’s instructions through the Quran that they should not willfully harm themselves.

The truth is most detainees were only pretending to be Muslims, their murderous and hateful values were acquired through Al Qaeda, the Taliban or other Islamists. In fact, the new official name for self-starvation at Gitmo is “Long Term Non-Religious Fasts.”

That failed to get the desired response, so we told them we would have to give them fluids intravenously. One detainee resisted to the point of physical refusal. We strapped him to a litter and then pushed fluids.

GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA - JUNE 27:  (EDITORS NOTE: Image has been reviewed by the U.S. Military prior to transmission. ) A Public Affairs Officer escorts media through the currently closed Camp X-Ray which was the first detention facility to hold 'enemy combatants' at the U.S. Naval Station on June 27, 2013 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, houses the American detention center for 'enemy combatants'. President Barack Obama has recently spoken again about closing the prison which has been used to hold prisoners from the invasion of Afghanistan and the war on terror since early 2002. Credit: Getty Images

After several more days they were still not eating and refused to drink. We kept pushing the intravenous fluids, but it was becoming clear that we were going to have to intubate them and force nutrition into their stomachs before permanent organ damage, and then death occurred.

You see there are no military medical protocols that allow detainees to harm themselves, including self-starvation. The procedure for intubation, or forced feeding, is unpleasant, to be sure, but slowly dying because your body is feeding off of itself to the point of organ failure would probably be just a bit more uncomfortable, even torturous.

I pray you THINK about that for a moment. Is it absurd to tell someone to stop saving someone else’s life because it is potentially torturous to do so? We KNOW what happens to the body when it is not fed and nourished properly – it feeds on itself and then shuts down.

I know what you’re probably thinking: “So let the damn bastards starve themselves! It’ll save us taxpayers money and the bloodthirsty Islamists will get what they deserve – a painful and agonizing death! Remember Sept. 11! Remember Benghazi! Death to Akbar!”

A hooded demonstrator is seen at a protest calling for the closure of the Guntanamo Bay detention facility infront of the White House on May 18, 2013 in Washington, DC. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

We need to take a step back and then remember our values. We are the good guys. No matter what anyone else tells you, especially the left liberal, Islamist apologist uber-politically correct crowd who only want to manipulate American political will via self-starving unlawful combatant detainees, we have ethics and morals to uphold, even in the face of absurdity.

U.S. military personnel are trained to care for, and to treat with respect and dignity, any unlawful combatant that we detain, including those who wish to slowly and painfully off themselves. The majority of the U.S. military personnel working at Gitmo are professional, hard working, loyal and trustworthy individuals, who will never, ever disobey their orders to care for the detainees appropriately.

Because of this commitment to honor and integrity, International Committee of the Red Cross physicians with whom I worked at Gitmo and in Iraq told me, “Nobody does [detention operations] better than the United States.”

The Gitmo detainees are LUCKY to be ALIVE, as any or all of them could have been legally killed on the battlefield. They are even LUCKIER to have been captured by the U.S. rather than some other group with far less compassion and humanity (i.e. Al Qaeda, Taliban, or other Islamists); one that might, say, behead them, hack them to death, blow them up or drag them naked and lifeless through the streets, like they did to Daniel Pearl and Lee Rigby.

In this photo reviewed by US military officials, two feeding tubes and cans of Ensure are seen in the US Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, March 29, 2010. Detainees on hunger strikes or not eating are given enhanced nutrition via the tube. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

The irony drips, in thick globs, as our sworn enemy insists on being slowly and painfully allowed to die because the method being used to keep him alive is tantamount to TORTURE.

I wonder what George Orwell would say about this? I wonder what someone in a coma would say if they could, about being forcibly fed while medical science sorts out the cause of their coma? Did you know they also intubate premature infants? Ever hear that called torture?

Of course not! The act of self-starvation is a CONSCIOUS DECISION made for POLITICAL reasons by a desperate person, in this case an illegal combatant detainee.

Judge Kessler has ordered a temporary cease and desist to the forced feeding of Abu Wa’el Dhiab, and has forbidden his forced removal from his cell at Gitmo for that purpose.

I’d like to see her medical professional credentials, or her crystal ball, which she can guarantee no permanent or life-threatening damage will be done to the detainee during the time the restraint is in effect. The appellate court that sent the original appeal to end the force-feeding back to the District Court mentioned that the force-feeding procedure would “probably be allowed if it is just to prevent injury or death.”

People dress in orange jumpsuits and black hoods as activists demand the closing of the US military's detention facility in Guantanamo during a protest, part of the Nationwide for Guantanamo Day of Action, April 11, 2013 in New York's Times Square. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

It used to be that courts never interfered with military procedures, policies or laws. Gitmo has risen to a level of incalculable interference by the federal court system because President Barack Hussein Obama mentioned, bathed in both pre- and post-election naïveté, that he would CLOSE Gitmo within a year?

Could it be that he and U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder re-wrote the Military Commissions Act of 2006, to include rights and privileges for unlawful combatant detainees virtually identical to what you or I would enjoy in a U.S. Federal court of law?

Back to the intubation: We had the Navy Muslim chaplains and interpreter bedside with the two self-starving detainees before going ahead with the procedure, done in a private section of the detainee medical facility (an integrated and climate controlled tent system called Deployable Medical System), with low lighting and near whispering conversation.

The Muslim Navy chaplain, through the interpreter, tried to convince the detainees that their self-starvation was against Allah’s wishes, and that it would not be pleasant, and would they please reconsider.

They quietly and timidly refused, and then the Navy nurses, assisted by corpsmen, with a physician standing by, gently placed the feeding tubes through the detainee’s nostrils and then down their throats into their stomachs.

The detainees moaned slightly, winced some, and then opened their eyes wide when the nutritional liquid was slowly poured into them. So tell me, what exactly is inhumane, unethical or immoral about that?

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

Convicted Terrorists: Your Next-Door Neighbors?

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.

In this undated image made from video and provided by by Al-Jazeera, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, is shown. Osama bin Laden's son-in-law and spokesman still maintains that there was justification for the September 11, 2001 attacks orchestrated by al-Qaida upon the United States. (AP Photo/Al-Jazeera)

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.

Getty Images

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?

In this photo of a sketch by courtroom artist Janet Hamlin and reviewed by the U.S. Department of Defense, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, right, speaks with lawyer and U.S. Marine Corps Major Derek Poteet, a member of his legal team, while wearing a camouflage vest during the third day of the Military Commissions pretrial hearing against the five Guantanamo prisoners accused of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in Cuba, Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has told authorities he was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 hijacking plot, wore the woodland-style camouflage vest for the first time Wednesday, a clothing choice previously denied because of fears it might disrupt the court. Co-accused Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali is seen in the background, second from left. Photo Credit: Janet Hamlin/AP

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 Rigbyadmitting 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

LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD TAKES ON GUANTANAMO BAY

Question: What’s green and tan and red all over?

Answer: Kristen Stewart (better known as KStew) in Army fatigues making a Gitmo movie!

Why “red all over?” Because when the whole story comes out about her new film, “Camp X-Ray,” premiering Friday, Jan. 17, 2014, at the Sundance Film Festival, Kristen should be ashamed.

It’s not that I think that her acting will be bad; it’s the fact that the story and images will be hyped media caricatures of our military from a liberal Islamist apologist point of view.

What’s been made available publicly about the movie is slim, but there’s enough to see that the plot and portrayals will be brutal for the Army and for Americans.

Liberal Hollywood Takes on Guantanamo Bay

The synopsis reads:

A young soldier escapes her suffocating small town by joining the military, only to find that she isn’t going for a tour of duty in Iraq as she hoped. Instead, she’s sent to Guantanamo. Met with hatred and abuse from the Muslim men in her charge, she forges an odd friendship with a young man who has been imprisoned at Gitmo for eight years. While serving her country to the best of her abilities at Bravo Block, she is also subject to the attempted affections of her superior officer, Sergeant Randy without any action or sympathy from Commanding Officer Colonel Drummond at Gitmo.

There’s also a revealing interview with actor Lane Garrison, who plays KStew’s supervisor, Sgt. Randy in the film. In a radio interview, with host Artie Lang, Garrison describes his character as “a real seedy guard,” and says, “my character believes [the detainees are] all guilty of Sept. 11 and they should all rot [at Guantanamo Bay].”

Garrison also talks about how his character “sexually assaults” KStew’s character using graphic language, mentioning it took “four hours” to film the sexual assault scene. The film description suggests that KStew’s character gets no sympathy from her good ol’ boy commander, Col. Drummond, played by John Carroll Lynch.

Lang asks Garrison if his character “tortures” detainees, to which Garrison responds “Yeah, I get hard core with it, and it’s a really dark piece and Kristen’s phenomenal in it.”

Waterboarding is also mentioned, and Garrison confirms that he does that in the film, to which Lang says, “You really go into the torture thing?” And Garrison answers, “Yeah, we explore that, and we go into what happens when that one person is innocent, that’s down there, and he doesn’t get any trial.”

The film plays up myths from the imaginations of the left to the hardships of serving at Gitmo

Share:

It is clear from Garrison’s responses that the film plays up myths and false assumptions from the minds and imaginations of those insensitive to the challenges and hardships of being a soldier on duty at Guantanamo Bay.

The Army has never authorized enhanced interrogation techniques on anyone, ever. That job is left to the CIA, who did waterboard a “’handful’ of detainees [at Gitmo], which saved many lives,” according to George W. Bush in his autobiography, “Decision Points.” Waterboarding, at the time it was performed, was an authorized “enhanced interrogation technique,” and not considered torture, even by international standards, according to Donald Rumsfeld in his autobiography, “Known and Unknown.”

As for “innocent” detainees, there are none.

Though over 600 Gitmo detainees have been released, none of those were found “innocent” or “not guilty” of anything because they were never charged with war crimes. The unlawful combatants held legally at Gitmo do not have to be charged with anything according to the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare (Army Field Manual (FM) 27-10) even lawful combatant Prisoners of War may be held without charge “until the end of hostilities.”

Liberal Hollywood Takes on Guantanamo Bay

So, until all Islamists are dead, or no longer have the means or will to kill Americans, we can legally, morally and ethically hold them at Gitmo – it’s just not politically correct or expedient to say so.

In the meantime, the U.S. has not executed, beheaded, hacked to death, blown up or dragged a detainee naked and lifeless through the streets since detention operations have begun at Gitmo (despite the current recidivist rate among released Gitmo detainees of nearly 29 percent); these are all things our enemy has done to us and innocent others, including Christopher Stevens, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Benghazi in part by released Gitmo detainee Sufian bin Qumu, who planned the attack.

Garrison sums up the film this way: “[The movie] is going to cause a lot of controversy; people are going to be talking about it.”

And what exactly are people going to be saying? Probably things like: “I KNEW it! I just KNEW they tortured those innocent people down there!” and, “those dirty bastards raped her, too! Sexual assault in the military is out of control!”

Appearing in the opening credits to Academy Award winning best film, “The Hurt Locker,” from Chris Hedges book, “War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning,” is this quote:

The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.

The adrenaline rush one might experience in a war zone produces the fight or flight instinct that soldiers are supposed to be able to control. A person trained to cope with situations in a combat environment may not be able to easily adjust to peaceful civilian life upon their return home, but that doesn’t mean Hollywood should emphasize it, or make it appear to be the rule and not the exception.

War films, for all their glorious effort, tend to create exaggerated images of reality. War is not fun, and taking care of unlawful combatant Islamist extremists who want to kill us is securely in the “totally messed up” job category.

Liberal Hollywood Takes on Guantanamo Bay

It seems like we will get that portrayal in “Camp X-Ray,” and it appears we will also get the stereotypical politically correct soldier as victim routine, led by Kristen Stewart’s portrayal of an innocent girl thrust unknowingly into a situation she finds confusing, abusive and overwhelming, perhaps a-la “Private Benjamin,” in which Goldie Hawn forlornly asks her drill sergeant, “where are the condos?”

Soldiers pick their jobs, but not their missions. Civilian recruits dream of battlefield heroics that don’t measure up to the generally mundane hurry-up-and-wait reality of most military occupational specialties, and being a Military Police soldier can find one in myriad situations, from directing traffic to front gate security, and from personal security detail to detention operations. The latter scenario requires additional training, and has its own designation in the Army, which is the only military branch that trains for detention missions.

There are bound to be anachronisms in “Camp X-Ray,” like the misnomer title. The real Camp X-Ray was asolitary confinement detention facility hastily cleaned up from the 1990s Haitian boat crisis. The inside looked like dog kennels, with concrete slabs and six-by-eight-foot chain linked boxes. It existed as a functioning detention facility for approximately four months, from December 2001 to April 2002.

Since the synopsis available for “Camp X-Ray” the movie says that KStew’s character “forges an odd friendship” with a detainee who’s been there for eight years, I’m going to assume they either took artistic license and have Camp X-Ray still open, or they are confused about where the majority of detainees actually are today (it’s a separate camp the U.S. began constructing immediately upon getting to Gitmo, called Camp Delta).

Liberal Hollywood Takes on Guantanamo Bay

For the record, U.S. Army Military Police lived in austere conditions during that time, having set up a tent city on higher ground above Camp X-Ray. When the detainees were moved to Camp Delta, U.S. personnel also got an upgrade to living in Sea Huts, or plywood dwellings with air conditioning, in a place called Camp America, which was adjacent to the detention facilities.

“Camp X-Ray” the movie probably won’t go into much detail about the oath Army recruits and officers take upon enlistment and commissioning that requires them to follow all lawful orders of those appointed over them, or the fact that all troops assigned to Gitmo are NEVER to fraternize with detainees.

So if KStew’s character has a relationship with a detainee, she is breaking her oath and is violating the regulations and committing a crime. I doubt that will be stressed. She will be sexually assaulted, which will further portray her as a victim, and she will get no sympathy from her superiors, which will make her character even more hurt puppy-like, and make the Army seem more the villain.

In the end, we will be getting a point of view shared by the majority of citizens at large from the images and sound bites spoon fed by a liberal media for consumption by those who already see the male dominated military as unfair, brutal and sexist.

That is not what your military is all about: 99.99 percent of those who serve do so with loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage. Every American can be proud of all but a very few who serve at Gitmo.

The few who broke their oaths and fraternized with the detainees? They are out there, and apparently KStew is now one of them.