Closing Gitmo

Closing Gitmo
Vol: 45 Issue: 21 Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Former President Clinton has jumped on the appeasement bandwagon, adding his voice to those of other leading Democrats who, having smelt blood in the water, are now in a feeding frenzy over the terrorist detention facilities at Guant namo Bay.

Clinton joined critics at home and abroad who have singled out the indefinite detention of prisoners without trial and widespread reports of human rights violations at Guant namo. It is time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused, he said.

According to Clinton, the camp needs to be either ‘closed down or cleaned up.’ Leaving aside for a moment the fact that allegations of human rights abuses are being lodged by the terrorists, and the fact that Pentagon investigations have uncovered no abuses more significant that failing to be sensitive in handling the Koran and physical abuse no more serious than that suffered by any American who survived Marine Corps boot camp, what sense does that make?

Which state within the continental US should be forced to accept and house five hundred of the most dangerous human beings on the planet? I’d be willing to bet that Dick Durbin would fight tooth and nail to keep an al-Qaeda detention facility out of Illinois, for example.

Bill Clinton may live in Chappequa, NY, but Hillary is the US Senator from New York. You can rest assured that she wouldn’t sit still for putting them in her district, either.

The Democrats are complaining that the United States isn’t affording terrorists the protections afforded under the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions require combatants to separate themselves from civilians by wearing distinctive uniforms and to avoid concentrating military forces around civilian population centers.

Each signatory nation signed on because in the event of war, the Geneva Conventions provide some measure of safety for their civilian populations, in addition to ensuring minimum standards of ethical treatment for prisoners of war. Each nation, by joining the Conventions, pledges itself to treating its prisoners as it would want its own captured forces to be treated.

It also provides for a benchmark standard against which violators can be prosecuted. If, in fact, we afforded them Geneva Conventions protections, we could theoretically convict every last one of them of violating them and then take ’em out and shoot ’em. How would THAT play out in the court of public opinion or the left side of the aisle?

Affording terrorists the protections and guarantees provided for by the Geneva Conventions makes a mockery of their intended purpose and would render them, to all intents and purposes, null and void.

Terrorists TARGET civilians. They hide themselves among civilians because under the terms of Geneva, signatory countries like the United States can’t attack them there.

They disguise themselves as civilians, launch attacks from within civilian population centers and make it as hard as possible to tell fighters from farmers. They do that, HOPING civilians will be inadvertently killed, handing a propaganda victory to the terrorist side.

They take civilians as prisoners, use them as hostages or bargaining chips and then, after they have outlived their usefulness as living prisoners, squeeze the last drop of publicity out by brutally murdering them on camera.

The Democratic line is that by NOT extending the guarantees of Geneva to al-Qaeda prisoners puts out own forces at risk. That doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Is there a greater risk than being tied up, blindfolded and decapitated with a rusty knife?

I refuse to believe that the entire Democratic political machine is made up of folks that stupid, which only leaves the alternative explanation that they know the truth and prefer the lie.

Affording the protections and guarantees of the Geneva Conventions to terrorists means that, in a legitimate war, an enemy state can ignore them without fear of having their own prisoners held by our side mistreated in return — effectively removing any incentive to comply with them.

Extending Geneva to terrorists puts out own forces at even greater risk, not just in this conflict, but in future conflicts in which Geneva might be applicable. They know that. They KNOW that. But they don’t care.

The Republicans have botched a lot of things during this war . . . but wait! Is this a REPUBLICAN war? Were the 9/11 victims all Republicans? Did al-Qaeda declare war on Republicans? Were Democrats exempted somehow?

Is there a Republican America and a Democratic America? Are those Democrats in the House and Senate all high-school graduates? Because if they were smart enough to graduate from high school, they are smart enough to figure this out on their own.

Clinton said Gitmo should be closed down or cleaned up because, It is time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused.”

What kind of stories about abuse? Stories like the one Newsweek ran about flushing Korans down a toilet? Stories that are not only unsubstantiated by background but clearly impossible in practice?

Stories like the one read by Dick Durban on the Senate floor, gleaned from confidential FBI reports? Gee, how did THAT story get into the press? The point is, they KNOW better. I can’t repeat that often enough.

It isn’t a defense of the Republicans to say that the Democrats are deliberately and actively working against the best interests of a nation at war in order to gain a political advantage.

Despite what the partisans say, it IS possible to oppose the Democrats without it being an endorsement of the Republicans. To tell you the truth, I have no idea how the Republicans would handle the war. They don’t have time — they are too busy fighting their own political counterparts to properly prosecute a war elsewhere.

That isn’t a defense of the Republicans, it is an indictment against the treasonous conduct of their political opponents. I don’t know if I would approve of the Republican warfighting agenda, but at this point, I’d be in favor of ANY agenda.

Right now, we don’t have one.

Four years into the war, the Democrats continue to insist that enemy combatants be treated like American criminals. An American walked into a Seattle courthouse yesterday carrying what looked like a WWII grenade. The cops shot him dead. Isn’t that what our forces are doing on the battlefields?

I fail to see the logic. What is the point in craving power so badly that one is willing to risk destroying the country in the process? What point is power then?

The leftist quislings in the House and Senate are demanding that the administration charge the detainees with a crime or let them go. Give them lawyers and hold long, drawn out trials under the due process guarantees of the US Constitution.

Let’s look at the first three words of our foundational documents; “We, the People”. Which people? The people of the world? Who are the terrorists killing? We, the People. Who is the Constitution designed to protect? We, the People OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

It isn’t Guantanamo Bay that is hurting the US image abroad. It is the coverage of it. Closing the prison won’t accomplish anything beyond giving the terrorists another propaganda victory. The purpose of terror is to force a government to appease them in order to make it stop.

The problem is, appeasement is like paying a blackmailer. Once you pay him once, he doesn’t go away. He is emboldened by his success to demand more and more.

A case in point is Israel. Israel caved in to Palestinian terror in 1993 and signed a deal that would give the Palestinian Authority limited autonomy in certain cities in the West Bank and Gaza.

The Oslo agreement gave the PA the authority to run their own municipal services in Jericho, at first. Municipal services means garbage collection, education, police services, etc.

The document Arafat signed expressly excluded any Palestinian presence in Jerusalem. Arafat signed it, knowing that, once Israel paid off once, he could keep coming back to demanding more. Appeasement cost Israel its claim to all of the West Bank, Gaza and half of Jerusalem.

Since the signing of Oslo, terror hasn’t abated, it has intensified. And there is no end in sight.


The Democrats are demanding the United States appease our enemies. Not because they think that the administration will, but because they are betting the administration won’t. That provides them with more ammunition with which to attack them.

The problem with attacking them is that it forces the administration to defend itself from attacks from within at the expense of defending the country from attacks from outside. To date, if there is a single positive plan that the Democrats have, they’ve kept it a state secret.

Close Gitmo? Then what? No answer. Extend Geneva protections to terrorists? Why? I dunno. Withdraw our troops from Iraq? What happens to the terrorists now fighting there after we pull out? Beats me. What would you do differently if you WERE in power? Ummm, don’t know.

Meanwhile, they know what the Republicans would do if they closed Gitmo, extended Geneva to terrorists, withdrew from Iraq and brought our troops back home.

They would be standing in front of a podium, fumbling for an explanation for why the homeland suffered another terrorist attack.

Then the Democrats could campaign on the GOP’s inability to protect the homeland. The Americans killed would be nothing more than collateral damage that they could use to blame the Republicans.

Not people. Not Americans. Not members of somebody’s family. Political ammunition.

The answer isn’t to censor the free press. They are merely parroting the Democratic line. If the Democratic agenda were to protect the homeland, then that would be the press agenda as well. The free press operates based on the principles of capitalism.

If there were no market for stories about an evil American administration abusing the Koran, there would be no stories. If nobody bought Newsweek because it of its blatant anti-Americanism, it would either change its editorial policies or go out of business.

The free press is free because it gets paid by the public, not the government. The idea of an ‘independent’ press is spin.

They are dependent on their audience for revenue. And that audience has been so poisoned by leftist propaganda that they can’t tell the difference anymore.

To most Americans, our senior elected politicians have credibility by virtue of their high office alone. Dick Durbin’s seditious remarks made the international press because he is a United States Senator. Al-Jazeera wouldn’t be repeating the story day after day if they had been made by a Chicago councilman.

His remarks wouldn’t resonate throughout the Arab world the way they did if they had been made by Osama bin Laden.

Title 18 of the US Code defines ‘treason’ as follows: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death.”

Under the legal definition of treason, there are grounds to indict virtually the entire Democratic leadership of the United States of America and most of the allegedly ‘free press’.

It is impossible for me to believe that the Democrats aren’t aware of the detrimental effect of their activities on the war effort.

It is a deliberate political strategy aimed at defeating the GOP at the polls, by actively working towards US defeat on the battlefield and the destruction of public morale.

It is no defense of the Republicans to say the Democrats are the embodiment of the US Codes’ definition of treason. Their conduct would be treasonous regardless of political affiliation.

The fact that there are those who would defend such conduct is incomprehensible, yet there they are, millions of Democrats, all actively working against the administration as if it were a foreign occupation government.

No lie is too egregious to accept at face value. No charge is too outrageous to be repeated. Anyone who speaks positively about America is denounced as an ‘administration flack’ or a ‘Republican shill’, or even a ‘warmonger’ — as if this were a war started by the Republican Party. Or that wanting to win so that it will end is somehow partisan.

This is not an exaggeration of our situation, neither is it an overstatement of our peril.

“Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:” (2nd Timothy 3:3-4)

Those of us who live in America know what America is. It is us. All of us. Our friends, our neighbors, our family, our friends.

Do you know anyone that would be capable of torturing a helpless captive? Can you think of anyone you know personally that is deserving of the kind of international contempt heaped on all of us collectively?

Do you know anybody personally who resembles the popular image of a brutal, uncaring, human rights abusing America as is held from abroad?

Where are they all? In Afghanistan? Iraq? Washington? How come they don’t live on your street? Is there another America hiding somewhere under the bed?

Is it a defense of the Republicans to believe the America you know is better than the America you keep reading about or hearing about from quislings like Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid?

Listen to the rhetoric carefully and dispassionately and see if you can find ANYTHING positive about America emanating from the Left. Anything at all? Just one thing. I’ll wait. . . .


This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s