From The Mouth Of A Rational Republican

I guess at least one Republican in the country is tired of the fearmongering from his party over GITMO.

The prospect of transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a maximum-security prison in Thomson, Illinois, generated an interesting response from a Republican state lawmaker who represents a neighboring area.

Representative Jim Sacia of the state's 89th District accused Republicans in Washington -- including Senate candidate, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill) -- of risking thousands of local jobs in their demagoguery of the detainee issue.

"My thinking on this is extremely positive," Sacia told the Huffington Post. "If we lose this opportunity. All I can think of is we literally are idiots. I mean that sincerely."

"I understand I'm on different pages of music with others in my party. First of all this should not be a partisan issue in anyway. If President Obama brings the detainees on U.S. soil and we sit here with a brand new state-of-the-art, max security prison, sitting vacant for the last eight years, and pass on an opportunity to sell it to the federal government, which we would fill it with 1,500 regular prisoners and 800 detainees, what is the problem? The building was designed to do that.

"The only reason we have rhetoric now is because of the closing of Gitmo," Sacia concluded. "It makes no sense at all. This is a tremendous opportunity and we would be idiots to waste it."

I can't wait to see what kind of backlash Sacia faces from saying just about the most sensible thing I have heard from a Republican all year.

Im sure Boss Limbaugh will have something to say.

A GITMO Alternative

The AP is reporting that the Obama administration is looking at creating a military/civilian prison to house all of the GITMO detainees. Such a site would also house a courtroom so that detainees would not have to be shipped all over the country to be put on trial which would potentially give Republicans an opening to fear monger. I won't excerpt any of the article because we all know the AP is tripping right now but Gotta Laff has a pretty good write up on it at her blog, Political Carnival.

YIMBY

Turns out there ARE some cities in America that not only aren't afraid of housing GITMO detainees in their jail, they are practically BEGGING to do so.

A frequent attack on the closure of Guantanamo is the claim that no one in the U.S. wants detainees housed in their backyard. Last Sunday, Dick Cheney remarked, “I don’t know a single congressional district in this country that is going to say, gee, great, they’re sending us 20 Al Qaida terrorists.” But Al Jazeera’s Rob Reynolds reports that the town of Hardin, MT requesting that 100 detainees be sent to its empty prison:

Earlier this month, Hardin’s town council voted unanimously to offer the US government a deal: Send Hardin the detainees that most foreign countries and other cities the US are afraid to take.

“Why not us?” [Greg Smith, Hardin's economic development director] asks. “They’ve got to go somewhere.” He dismisses security concerns over housing inmates former Bush administration officials famously described as “the worst of the worst”. “We have some very hardened criminals in our own country that have committed some heinous crimes, and they are in communities all across this country,” Smith argues. [...]

He estimates at least 100 new jobs would come from filling the prison, a real boost to this small, beleaguered community. Smith describes the town’s quest to become a new penal colony as “a piece of the American dream.” “Like anything in America, we’re looking for opportunities,” he says.

Isn't it about time that our Democratic leaders in the Congress stopped hiding behind this bullshit line anyway? Our prisons can hold those assholes and nobody will be put at any more danger than they already are. Its time to close GITMO and its time that our Democratic Congress gets with that program.

Jim Webb Chooses Politics Over Policy

I have had a lot of good things to say about Jim Webb over he past few months. His willingness to try to bring reform to our prison system and his keeping an open mind about legalizing marijuana made me somewhat a fan of his. But this morning Jim Webb was a major dissappointment. He embraced NIMBY as a political stance obviously because he fears Republican attacks on him and he rejected the idea of a truth commission.




First on the subject of the Uigyurs obviously Jim Webb contradicts himself. First he says detainees should get their day in court and then we should accept what happens. Then he says he wouldn't want the Uigyurs coming to Virginia. But Uigyurs DID have their day in court and a judge decided they were not guilty and not dangerous. Now coincidentally just the other night hilzoy had two really good posts on who the Uigyurs are and how they got to be conflated with terrorists in the first place. The first one focused on who they are.

Here's a description (pdf, see pp. 211-212) of the Uighurs from an FBI report filed in 2004, and describing a visit in 2002. It follows what seems to be an account of abuse of one of the Uighurs:

"The Uighurs are moderate Muslims who occupied East Turkestan, which was taken over by the Chinese and renamed the Xinjiang province of China. The Uighurs were offered land in Afghanistan in order to gather personnel opposing Chinese oppression. They were often inspired by Radio Free Asia, which [redacted] was often a broadcaster for. The Uighurs considered themselves to be fighting for democracy, and they idolized the United States. Although the Uighurs are Muslim their agenda did not appear to include Islamic radicalism. They claimed to have no political connection to Islamic terrorists or the Taliban. However, their camp in Afghanistan was bombed, and they fled to Pakistan. The Uighurs were captured by the Pakistanis, with half being transferred to US custody, and half being remanded directly to Chinese officials. It was alleged that the Uighurs who were transferred directly to the Chinese were immediately executed. At the time of my TDY, US officials were considering whether to return the Uighurs to the Chinese, possibly to gain support for anticipated US action in the Middle East. The Uighur detainees at GTMO were convinced that they would be immediately executed if they were returned to China."

That's not a defense lawyer speaking; it's an FBI agent, interviewing them about a year after their detention. These are not terrorists. These are people we picked up by mistake

And the other focused on who they aren't.

The Uighurs were at a camp, or a village, run by ETIM in 2001. Abdul Haq is supposed to have been a member of al Qaeda's shura since 2005, years after the detainees had anything to do with him. If there is evidence that he or his group were affiliated with al Qaeda in 2001, I do not know of it, and the Uighurs have consistently denied any affiliation with al Qaeda.

So Jim Webb is either ill informed or is willingly fearmongering so as to hold up the closing of GITMO. You know I hate to say it but when Democrats allow themselves to be played like this by Republicans then they actually deserve to get their asses kicked in the next election. There is no need for them to allow the right wing to dominate this issue in the way that it has but its going to take someone with brass balls to stand up to them. I kinda thought it might have been a guy like Jim Webb. Obviously I was wrong.

Bob Graham On MSNBC

Finally somebody is covering the fact that other Democratic Leaders had similar experiences to Speaker Pelosi in their CIA briefings. I think David Shuster did a fantastic job interviewing former Senator and Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Bob Graham.



Will other cable news shows follow suit?

Congressman Moran KINDA Gets it

Congressman Jim Moran has an op ed in the Washington Post about Alexadria Virginia potentially hosting some of the trials for the GITMO detainees. It goes a lil something like this.

While closing Guantanamo would go a long way toward removing this stain on our national character, the decision to do so was the easy part. What to do with the detainees who remain of the more than 700 sent there since 2001 is much more difficult.

Like those in any other congressional districts, we Virginians would rather not have terrorism suspects held and tried in our back yard. Should some of the detainees at Guantanamo be sent to the Alexandria courthouse, there is no question that people in the immediate vicinity -- more than 10,000 residents and workers during business hours -- would be affected. The strain on local law enforcement and other public safety officers would be significant. The media attention following such a decision would probably generate public outrage in some circles over safety concerns, regardless of the security measures implemented.

Often, though, doing the right thing is neither popular nor convenient.

By and large, Alexandrians are civic-minded people and are ready to do their duty if it serves the greater good. They have shown this public spirit time and again. The "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui, who participated in planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon, was held and prosecuted in the Alexandria courthouse. Others who have been brought to justice in the court include the "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad; and spies Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames.

In each case, Alexandria demonstrated the kind of courage and patriotism that can be traced to the city's roots as the home town of George Washington and Robert E. Lee.

Taking the easy route and joining the chorus of those crying "not in my back yard" is appealing. But that's not the Alexandria I know and have represented in Congress for nearly 20 years. Even before that, I served as mayor of the city, and I am confident that if asked to step forward, Alexandria would demonstrate resolve for a higher purpose, echoing John F. Kennedy's call to accept the challenge presented because it is what happens to be right and good for our nation.

Trying the accused, no matter how heinous the accusation, in a fair and transparent judicial procedure will reestablish our international moral authority and thus strengthen our national security.

Let there be no mistake: I'm not advocating for this burden. If there are more suitable locations in which to try the detainees, it would be a relief to all in this area.

But should President Obama determine that Alexandria needs to play a reasonably limited role in a nationwide effort to bring justice to the Guantanamo detainees and close this unfortunate chapter of American history, I am confident that Alexandrians will stand strong as they always have: gritting their teeth, stiffening their spines and carrying the load required so that the American values of justice and the rule of law are not overridden but, rather, respected and honored, as is our heritage as a great nation.

I am happy on the one hand to at least have Congressman Moran speaking out in favor of Virginians stepping up to the plate for detainee trials should President Obama determine that they should happen there. But on the other hand he comes off like he is damn near apologizing for asking the people to support this. What I want to know is if he actually did any polling showing that people in Alexandria were truly scared of detainees being housed and tried there. I bet he did not. But because Congressional Dems, especially those who have been in Congress for some time, are afraid of their own shadow I am sure that Moran just convinced himself that everyone MUST be scared because the Republicans keep saying they are. I will give Moran props for stepping up to the plate and being one of the first Democrats to do so but damn can we get someone with a little more courage the next time?

Can't Stop, Won't Stop

Yet another fearmongering video from the GOP



Just as an experiment try watching it with the sound turned all the way down and then try not to get pissed at these assholes for using 9-11 for propaganda purposes.

Then turn the volume up but close your eyes and try to imagine cute puppies and kittens playing together.

The only thing scary about these ads are the music. I imagine the next GOP video on GITMO detainees will have the theme music from the "Saw" movies. Or maybe they can go old school and use the theme song to "Halloween".


Group Of Pussies

(h/t Ambinder)

Run For The HIlls!

This is pretty much the appropriate response to the GOP fearmongering these days. Great job Rachel.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Thank You HIlzoy

I guess I am not the only one who thinks the GOP's NIMBY campaign is utterly ridiculous. Hilzoy made this video in response to the new GOP fearmongering GITMO detainee video and I think it perfectly encapsulates the absurdity at work here.

Hopefully a Democratic lawmaker will see this video and step up to the plate.

Democrats, GITMO Detainees, And NIMBY

I for one am getting sick and damned tired of hearing about the GOP ramping up a fear campaign against Congressional Democrats when it comes to National Security. Specifically, now they are going to try to hit Democrats with ads about closing GITMO and "ZOMG teh terrorists will be in America". This is the latest lame ass offering.




Here is the deal, Congressional Democrats have an opportunity here and they are squandering it. What they need to do is stand up and say that they would welcome the opportunity to house some of the detainees in their state. Not only should they project an aura of confidence that American jails can hold foreign terrorists, but also that the move could help create more jobs in their state. They should also point out that those who wouldn’t be similarly enthusiastic about helping to maintain our national security are COWARDS. This NIMBY bullshit that the Republicans are embracing is exactly the chance Dems have been waiting for for years to be able to wrest the mantle of “tough on crime” and “strong on national security” from the GOP. I can’t for the life of me understand why they are scared to take Republican on with this issue. The detainees will be in supermax prisons. They don’t have any frikkin superpowers to be able to break out. And by not confronting the GOP on this and in some cases actually agreeing with them that it would be dangerous to house detainees on US soild they are not only legitimizing what is at its core a nonsensical viewpoint, they are also opening themselves up to charges of being weak on defense of the homeland.

Fuck it, if the Republicans are going to use the issue anyway its time to make them pay for being the bed wetting pussies that they really are. I keep waiting to hear “Send them to us, we know just how to handle them” from ANYBODY in the Democratic caucus but it seems like they are just going to allow Republicans to frame this issue and then turn around and use it as a platform to run against them next year. I can’t tell you how stupid that is and how much it frustrates the hell out of me. We have the WTC bombers in jail in Colorado for pete’s sake along with the Oklahoma City bombers. We have a long and storied history of locking up the most dangerous people in our society and in fact the world in our prisons here. Why in the fuck should Democrats now show so little faith in their consituents that they run away from an issue that they could clearly win on? Somebody needs to step up to the plate and in a frikkin hurry.

What Does "Return To The Battlefield" Really Mean? Updated

Update: Right on time Seton Hall releases a rebuttal of the new report that 61 detainees returned to the battlefield

Watching Morning Joe yesterday (thankfully Scarborough is at an undisclcosed location hiding out probably due to the article about the US torturing people) I was interested in one particular segment where they discussed a report by the Department of Defense that 11% of detainees released from GITMO had "returned to the battlefield". I remember a while back when a previous report had made similar claims and how they had to be walked back. To satisfy my curiosity I did a little digging and found this explanation of what "returning to the battlefield" really means published by the Seton Hall University School of Law. It explains why this allegation is overblown and wildly exagerated and why we should always be skeptical of our media folks who report this kind of stuff uncritically.

From the Seton Hall report:

• only twenty-one (21)—or four percent (4%)—of 516 Combatant Status Review
Tribunal unclassified summaries of the evidence alleged that a detainee had ever been on any battlefield;
• only twenty-four (24)—or five percent (5%)—of unclassified summaries alleged that a detainee had been captured by United States forces;
• and exactly one (1) of 516 unclassified summaries alleged that a detainee was captured by United States forces on a battlefield.

Kinda hard to return to the battlefield if you were never there to begin with I would think.

Just as the Government’s claims that the Guantánamo detainees “were picked up on the battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces,” do not comport with the Department of Defense’s own data, neither do its claims that former detainees have “returned to the fight.” The Department of Defense has publicly insisted that “just short of thirty” former Guantánamo detainees have “returned” to the battlefield, where they have been re-captured or killed, but to date the Department has described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists, and has identified only seven (7) of these individuals by name. According to the data provided by the Department of Defense:

• at least eight (8) of the fifteen (15) individuals alleged by the Government to have“returned to the fight” are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies;

• ten (10) of the individuals have neither been re-captured nor killed by anyone;
• and of the five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, the names of two (2) do not appear on the list of individuals who have at any time been detained at Guantánamo, and the remaining three (3) include one (1) individual who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantánamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.

Thus, the data provided by the Department of Defense indicates that every public statement made by Department of Defense officials regarding the number of detainees who have been released and thereafter killed or re-captured on the battlefield was false.

Reread that last line. It was all bullshit. They released the report seemingly just to justify continuing to keep GITMO open and continuing to detain the prisoners there indefinitely. I mean what is more scary than the thought that you let some one go who you had in the first place and for that genorosity they come back later and kill men and women who are courageously serving our country. But what does "return to the battlefield" even mean in this context. Are they weilding guns and suicide vests trying to kill as many Americans as possible? The study delved into that issue as well.

More importantly, the majority of the individuals identified by the Department of Defense as recidivists appear to be miscategorized. Eight (8) of them are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of the Government’s detention policies, and ten (10) have neither been re-captured nor killed. Of the five (5) who are alleged to have been re-captured or killed, two (2) are not listed as ever having been detained at Guantánamo, and the other three (3) include one (1) who was killed in an apartment complex in Russia by local authorities and one (1) who is not listed among former Guantánamo detainees but who, since his death, has beenalleged to have been detained under a different name.

There appears to be a single individual who is alleged to have both been detained in Guantánamo and later killed or captured on some battlefield.

snip

A. The Department of Defense’s Definition of “Anti-Coalition Activity” is Over-Inclusive.

The July 2007 news release contains a preamble followed by brief descriptions of the Government’s bases for asserting that each of seven identified “recidivists” has “returned to the fight.”

The preamble, in relevant part, reads as follows:

Former Guantánamo Detainees who have returned to the fight:

Our reports indicate that at least 30 former GTMO detainees have taken part in anti‐coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention. Some have subsequently been killed in combat in Afghanistan.

…Although the US Government does not generally track ex‐GTMO detainees after repatriation or resettlement, we are aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti‐US propaganda or other activities through intelligence gathering and media reports. (Examples: Mehsud suicide bombing in Pakistan; Tipton Three and the Road to Guantánamo; Uighurs in Albania).The following seven former detainees are a few examples of the 30; each returned to combat against the US and its allies after being released from Guantánamo.

With this preamble, interestingly, the Department of Defense abandons its oft-repeated allegation that at least thirty (30) former detainees have “returned to the battlefield” in favor of the far less sensational allegation that “at least 30 former GTMO detainees have taken part in anti-coalition militant activities after leaving U.S. detention.”

snip

The Department of Defense’s retreat from “return to the battlefield” is signaled, in particular, by the Department’s assertion that it is “aware of dozens of cases where they have returned to militant activities, participated in anti-US propaganda or other activities[.]”12

Although the “anti-US propaganda” to which the news release refers is not militant by even the most extended meaning of the term, the Department of Defense apparently designates it as such, and is consequently able to sweep distinctly non-combatant activity under its new definition of “militant activities.”

As a result, the Uighurs in Albania and “The Tipton Three,”—who, upon release from
Guantánamo, have publicly criticized the way they were treated at the hands of the United States—are deemed to have participated in “anti-coalition militant activities” despite having neither “returned to a battlefield” nor committed any hostile acts whatsoever. “The Tipton Three” have been living in their native England since their release. The Uighurs remained in an Albanian refugee camp until relatively recently; they now have been resettled in apartments in Tirana—except for one, who lives with his sister in Sweden and has applied for permanent refugee status. Despite having been neither re-captured nor killed, these eight (8) individuals are swept under the banner of former Guantánamo detainees who have “returned to the fight.”

Even as the Department of Defense attempts to qualify its public statements that thirty former Guantánamo detainees have “returned to the fight,” and to widen its lens far beyond the battlefield, it still reaches at most fifteen (15) individuals—only half its stated total of Guantánamo recidivists.

snip

Summary of Problems with the Individual Identifications

Extending to the Government the benefit of the doubt as to ambiguous cases, the list of possible Guantánamo recidivists who could have been captured or killed on the battlefield consists of two individuals: Mohammed Ismail and Mullah Shazada. If an apartment complex in Russia falls within the definition of “battlefield,” then as of June 2007—after the Department of Defense had already cited thirty (30) as the total number of recidivists—an additional individual, Ruslan Odizhev, can be added to the list. Thus, at most—of the approximately 445 detainees who have been released from Guantánamo51—three (3) detainees, or less than one percent (1%), have subsequently returned to the battlefield to be captured or killed. Two (2) other detainees (Abdul Rahman Noor and Mohammed Nayim Farouq), while not re-captured or killed, are claimed to be engaged in military activities, although the information provided by the Government in this regard cannot be cross-checked.

So instead of 30 enemy combatants returning to the battlefield, the truth is best case scenario there were only 3. Now there are still problems with 3 detainees after being released returning to the battlefield, numbers matter. There is a reason that the DOD said 30 and not 3 and its because they knew that no one would care if they released such a low number. Similarly now the 61 figure is of course getting a lot of attention. But we have to wonder how many of those 61 simply wrote another op ed or participated in a documentary to be included in that inflated figure. There are legitimate reasons to worry about what might happen when we close GITMO and I believe that is why President Elect Barack Obama is taking a measured approach. But it is now obvious that the DOD is obviously just using fear tactics to turn public opinion against closing GITMO and we shouldn't allow their fear mongering to work.