Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Should Get No Trial At All

It's been pretty funny watching the whining and sniveling of terrorist rights supporters upset that President Obama is going to use a military tribunal to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Most of those criticizing the decision do so with various false assertions based on false assumptions. Let's take the New York Times editorial today as an example.

How fitting it would have been to put the plot’s architect on trial a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, to force him to submit to the justice of a dozen chosen New Yorkers, to demonstrate to the world that we will not allow fear of terrorism to alter our rule of law.

It would demonstrate to the world that we are stupid enough to provide a huge forum for an orgy of anti-Americanism under the guise of the so-called "rule of law." I've found as a general rule, whenever anyone makes serious use of the phrase "rule of law," the odds are that it will be preceded or followed by utter nonsense.

But, apparently, there are many who continue to cower, who view terrorists as much more fearsome than homegrown American mass murderers and the American civilian jury system as too “soft” to impose needed justice.

This assertion, and just about the entire op-ed is a typical strawman. The primary reason people oppose civilian trials for foreign terrorists is that foreign terrorists are not entitled to the protections of U.S. civil law. In my opinion, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed does not require a trial of any kind. KSM is a leader of an enemy terrorist organization with which we are still at war. He was captured back in 2003. The last I checked it is now 2011. He hasn't had a trial, and he still doesn't need one. We can hold him forever if we so choose. Al Qaeda as an organization, and its members are completely outside the law [unless they happen to be U.S. citizens, in which case they should be treated as such]. They follow no rules, haven't signed any international agreements, and there are no clear guidelines for how to deal with captured members. Rather than tying our own hands, and providing our enemies with unearned and undeserved rights, we should retain as wide a latitude as possible in dealing with foreign terrorists.

Even going through the motions of a military trial for KSM is a gigantic waste of time. There's no question about his identity, his leadership role in Al Qaeda, and his involvement in 9/11. Even former administration spokesman Robert Gibbs talked about KSM's conviction and execution as a foregone conclusion. The U.S. isn't going to release him under any circumstances, regardless of what happens at a trial, civilian or military. He is essentially under a suspended death sentence already -- as he should be. Ideally he should already be dead. After we extracted all useful information, he should have faced summary execution. But since we didn't do that, and he's now been sitting in prison for eight years, it might be more appropriate to just let him rot.

As I've argued many times on this blog, the blind legalism of terrorist rights supporters, and their attempt to debase the rights of U.S. citizens by awarding them to foreign enemies, is far more dangerous to the U.S. than any treatment we might meet out to someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Rather than extending this post further, I'll just link to my two part post "No Rights for Hostile Aliens."

Pointless Trial For Former Gitmo Detainee

There's an article in the New York Times that provides a prime example of blind legalism in action. It's difficult to read it without laughing incredulously that we are actually wasting all this time and effort putting a known terrorist on trial in the civilian court system -- let alone agonizing over various details.

Here's the situation. Back in 2004 we captured Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who was implicated in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. African embassies. It's blatantly obvious that he's guilty. Ghailani was first held in a "secret" CIA prison, and then moved to Guantanamo. His interrogation revealed the name of the person who sold him explosives, Hussein Abebe, who was then tracked down. Abebe admits selling Ghailani the explosives thinking that they'd be used for legitimate mining purposes. So what's the problem?

Naturally, like every terrorist, Ghailani claims he was tortured. Instead of just ignoring his claim, for which there is zero evidence, the judge is worried about how the U.S. government found out about Abele, and why he is cooperating. There's a question of whether or not he will be permitted to testify.

This situation demonstrates yet again the problems with pretending that hostile aliens have U.S. constitutional rights, or that the civilian legal system applies to covert intelligence operations and secret war efforts against terrorist enemies. Once it was confirmed that Ghailani was part of the embassy bombings, he should have received a quick summary execution -- preferably in secret. There's no reason to go through this farce and waste all sorts of time and money, just so the administration can conduct a show trial. It serves no good purpose, is unnecessary and risks further damage to our ongoing intelligence operations and war efforts. Since it appears that Ghailani is clearly guilty, I have little doubt that the administration will be able to secure some sort of conviction. But just by exposing this sort of case in civilian court, there is always the danger of having a judge make a ruling that will impose more restrictions on our covert actions.   

An Unnecessary Trial at Guantanamo

A military tribunal is set to try Omar Khadr at Guantanamo.

Khadr is accused of lobbing a grenade that killed U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer of Albuquerque, New Mexico, during a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. He faces a maximum life sentence if convicted of charges including murder, conspiracy and spying.

Khadr was 15 at the time. Although I support using military tribunals in certain instances, this whole situation with Khadr is unnecessary. If Khadr threw a grenade during a firefight, one of two things should have happened. Depending on the exact circumstances he should have been treated as A) a civilian unlawful combatant, or B) a member of the Taliban. If A), he should have been summarily executed. I know that we no longer use this traditional & customary penalty for civilians who attack military personnel in war zones -- although we should -- but we should have at least used whatever procedure we normally follow in Afghanistan to deal with such cases. If B), Khadr should have been treated as any other common member of the Taliban. In neither case was there any reason to transfer a 15 year-old nobody to Guantanamo from Afghanistan.

Since we foolishly brought Khadr to Guantanamo, a teenager highly unlikely to have any useful intelligence that couldn't have been gained in theater, we are now stuck with going through a farcical "war crimes" proceeding. If Khadr was a member of the Taliban, or any other militant group opposed to the U.S., his throwing a grenade during a firefight was a simple act of war.  The fact that he killed an American is irrelevant. That's the entire point of throwing grenades at your enemies. Labeling grenade-throwing as a war crime is ludicrous.

This is yet another example of the perils of taking a foolish legalistic approach to war. Members of the Taliban are clearly enemy combatants. Unless we are going to consider every single member of the Taliban to be a criminal subject to trial, there is no reason to single out certain individuals and pretend that their particular normal acts of war constitute war crimes. Whatever Khadr's actual status, he should simply have been turned over to the Afghan authorities for them to deal with. It's insane that we have kept this individual in Guantanamo for almost eight years. 

In case anyone gets the wrong idea, let me clarify a couple of things. I have no sympathy at all for Khadr, who appears to be an enemy of the U.S. who killed a U.S. serviceman. If he was simply a civilian who suddenly decided to throw a grenade at U.S. troops, in my opinion he should have been put up against a wall and shot to death by firing squad. But there was no good reason whatsoever to bring him to Guantanamo, and no reason to hold him there for so long -- as if he were some sort of Al Qaeda or Taliban leader. The entire situation should have been handled in Afghanistan, preferably by turning him over to the Afghan government and letting them deal with him. We created an entirely unnecessary problem for ourselves.

AP Reveals CIA Secrets

The Associated Press is getting into the game of revealing national security secrets. The heart of the story is at the beginning of the article.

A white, unmarked Boeing 737 landed in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before dawn on a CIA mission so secretive, many in the nation's war on terrorism were kept in the dark.

Four of the nation's most highly valued terrorist prisoners were aboard.

They arrived at Guantanamo on Sept. 24, 2003, years earlier than the U.S. has ever disclosed. Then, months later, they were just as quietly whisked away before the Supreme Court could give them access to lawyers.

It's good to know that the CIA did its best to put off the consequences of giving terrorists rights for as long as possible. They should be congratulated for taking such steps.

The transfer allowed the U.S. to interrogate the detainees in CIA "black sites" for two more years without allowing them to speak with attorneys or human rights observers or challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

And that was a good thing. Who knows what information might have been missed, had terrorist rights supporters prevailed more quickly in their efforts to cripple U.S. intelligence gathering?

Although it is nice to know the CIA took extensive measures to protect the country and extract information from top Al Qaeda leaders for as long as possible, none of this information should ever have seen the light of day. Each time CIA operational methods are revealed, there is a chance that we will have comprised tools that may be necessary in the future.

Appeals Court Shoots Down Uighurs

There are five Uighurs remaining at Guantanamo bay. Apparently they rejected three offers of resettlement in other countries, and have been suing to be released in the United States. Yesterday an appeals court rightly shot down their ridiculous demands and gave them two options: accept a resettlement offer or stay in jail.

“Petitioners hold the keys to their release from Guantánamo: All they must do is register their consent.” ...  The judges said: “Even if petitioners had good reason to reject the offers they would have no right to be released into the United States.”

You might think this should have been obvious and not required a lengthy court battle. Even more importantly, the court pointed out,

it was within the exclusive power of the political branches to decide which foreign nationals may or may not enter the US.

No foreign nationals have a some sort of right to settle in the U.S. The entire Uighur case is a gigantic waste of time and money. All of them should have been returned to China, preferably as part of a deal that secured some Chinese concessions on issues of importance to the U.S.

Another Terrorist Who Should Be Dead

Guess what? Another former Guantanamo detainee, Abdul Qayyum,  has turned up back with the Taliban. I know, big surprise.  

A man freed from Guantanamo more than two years ago after he claimed he only wanted to go home and help his family is now a senior commander running Taliban resistance to the U.S.-led offensive in southern Afghanistan, two senior Afghan intelligence officials say.

Oh yeah, and his second-in-command was also a prisoner at Guantanamo.

Qayyum's key aide in plotting attacks on Afghan and international forces is another former Guantanamo prisoner, said the Afghan intelligence officials as well as a former Helmand governor, Sher Mohammed Akundzada. Abdul Rauf, who told his U.S. interrogators he had only loose connections to the Taliban, spent time in an Afghan jail before being freed last year.

We had known terrorist leaders in custody and we let them go. Here's the description of Qayyum.

A Taliban commander in the 1990s who was notorious for brutality and summary executions, Qayyum was captured in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and taken to Guantanamo.

The incompetent Bush administration released him to Afghan custody in 2007, and they set him free. Now we get to fight him again.

U.S. intelligence asserts that 20 percent of suspects released from the Guantanamo Bay prison have returned to the fight and the number has been steadily increasing.

That's the most the government is willing to admit. And even 20% is far too many. According to the article Qayyum was noted for carrying out summary executions. That's exactly what should have happened to him. Once we were finished interrogating him -- with torture if necessary -- we should have put a bullet through his brain. But oh no, we couldn't do that. Too many people would whine and snivel about his imaginary rights, and call our action a war crime. We're just too civilized to execute murderous terrorists. We'll let them go instead, so they can kill more Americans, our allies, and Afghan civilians. Because the important thing is that we get people out of Guantanamo. Maybe we'll be able to capture him again, keep him a few more years, and then let him go after he promises that he really, really just wants to go be with his family this time. 

Court Upholds U.S. Law

You might think that would be a normal function of a U.S. federal court. But there are those who think that international law -- or what they interpret as "law," should take precedence, apparently including the UPI writer, who seems upset at the ruling. The case involved a Yemeni prisoner at Guantanamo, Ghaleb Nassar al-Bihani. In his petition for release, al-Bihani

challenged "the statutory legitimacy of his detention by advancing a number of arguments based on the international laws of war," the appeals court majority opinion said. Al-Bihani argued "'support,' or even 'substantial support' of al-Qaida or the Taliban as an independent basis for detention violates international law

Leaving aside the fact that a hostile alien captured in wartime shouldn't even be filing legal actions, there are obviously no universally accepted "laws of war." The court rightly rejected such nonsense.

putting aside that we find al-Bihani's reading of international law to be unpersuasive, we have no occasion here to quibble over the intricate application of vague treaty provisions and amorphous customary principles," the opinion added. "The sources we look to for resolution of al-Bihani's case are the sources courts always look to: The text of relevant statutes and controlling domestic case law. Under those sources, al-Bihani is lawfully detained.

It's nice to see a high level U.S. court reaffirm that the legality of U.S. actions are defined by U.S. laws. It's unfortunate that even needs to be stated, and that one of the three judge panel dissented from the opinion.

Why Was He Released?

The U.S. released Mohamed Saleban Bare from Guantanamo, despite the following:

his alleged ties with Al-Ittihad Al-Islamiya, a Somali Islamist movement which produced many of the current leaders of the Al Qaeda-linked Shebab

He was captured in Pakistan in 2001, and transferred to military prisons in Afghanistan, and then sent to Guantanamo. He's been there ever since, but now that we released him, he returned home to Somalia. 

Naturally, he makes the usual wild and hardly believable claims of torture. Despite describing himself as being "in good health," he claims the U.S. used extensive sleep deprivation, starvation rations of "one biscuit a day," and that some were tortured with "electricity and beating." He also makes the common Islamist charge that the U.S. insulted Islam by throwing Korans in toilets -- almost as if he's reading from the little handbook of anti-American propaganda. Bare called Guantanamo "hell on Earth," which is pretty funny coming from a Somali.

Let's see. We have a Somali with ties to a militant Islamist organization who just happened to be in Pakistan after 9/11, and who we felt was dangerous enough to transfer to Guantanamo and hold for eight years. And on his release he makes wild claims that sound like Al Qaeda propaganda. Could his capture have been a mistake? Maybe. We certainly made plenty of mistakes. But in this case it looks like we are probably releasing a terrorist.

Supreme Court Rejects Retroactive Terrorist Rights

Terrorist rights supporters suffered another loss yesterday when the Supreme Court refused to review the dismissal of a case brought by former Guantanamo detainees. According to one of the leading terrorist rights groups, the court ruled that

the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute that applies by its terms to all “persons” did not apply to detainees at Guantanamo, effectively ruling that the detainees are not persons at all for purposes of U.S. law.

And they shouldn't be. Foreign terror suspects should not be entitled to U.S. Constitutional rights.

the circuit court found that, even if torture and religious abuse were illegal, defendants were immune under the Constitution because they could not have reasonably known that detainees at Guantanamo had any Constitutional rights.

That should be obvious. After 9/11, the idea that foreign terrorist suspects had Constitutional rights would have been rightly ridiculed as preposterous. Unfortunately, after the immediate impact of the terror attack faded, terrorist rights supporters conducted an effective campaign that led the courts to grant some rights, in violation of longstanding interpretations of the constitution and general practice. But the court shot down this attempt by former detainees to pretend that such "rights" were always present, and had been violated. Here's their attorney.

“It is an awful day for the rule of law and common decency when the Supreme Court lets stand such an inhuman decision.

It's a good day for the rule of law, when the law isn't distorted to give foreign terror suspects rights they never had. And common decency was upheld by not allowing a baseless case against those trying to defend the country under difficult circumstances.

The final word on whether these men had a right not to be tortured or a right to practice their religion free from abuse is that they did not.

Correct. They had no rights, and should have had none.

Future prospective torturers can now draw comfort from this decision.

Let's hope so. It's quite possible we may face another situation where torture is necessary, or something that's called "torture," given its increasingly broad and nearly meaningless definition. If measures later deemed to be "torture" are authorized, those who carry them out shouldn't face legal action based on rule changes after the fact.

Another Terrorist's Family Files Suit

This time against the Kenyan government. I guess they decided the suit wouldn't be possible in U.S. court, so they decide to try to extract some money from Kenya instead. Why Kenya? The Kenyan government arrested Mohamed Abdulmalik in 2007. He was arrested for

his alleged involvement in a 2002 attack of an Israeli-owned Kenyan beach hotel and an unsuccessful attempt to shoot down a plane headed for Israel from the resort of Mombasa.

The Kenyans turned him over to us, and he's been at Guantanamo ever since. The family thinks they should get almost 30 million dollars, based on their allegations of misconduct by the Kenyan police, and the usual claims of "torture" at Guantanamo. This line in the court petition referring to Guantanamo is particularly amusing,

"long and unlawful detention without trial in what is now reputed to be the worst detention facility on earth."

As anyone with a basic grasp of reality is aware, Guantanamo is a paradise compared to numerous detention facilities throughout much of the world. The fact that such a ludicrous characterization is included in the suit tells you all you need to know about its worth. Hopefully it will be quickly dismissed, and the lawyers slapped with court costs for bringing such a frivolous action.

Obama Administration Actually on the Right Side Again

Continuing with my policy of giving Obama credit for the (few) things he gets right, I noticed that the administration is opposing a lawsuit on behalf of two former Saudi detainees that died at Guantanamo. The two committed suicide by hanging themselves back in 2006. Naturally their families think they should be able to cash in by blaming the U.S. government and filing a lawsuit.

The lawyers for the two men allege that torture and brutal conditions at the offshore prison led the men to their deaths.

This follows the usual policy where terrorist suspects make unsubstantiated claims of "torture" and brutality. It only differs in that the suspects are usually alive to make such transparently self-serving claims. It's pretty obvious that the U.S. can't be held responsible for people committing suicide, and that it's impossible to determine with any certainty why they did it. And the actual circumstances are irrelevant, since enemy combatants are not and should not be entitled to file civil lawsuits in U.S. court.

the government says the two men whose deaths were ruled suicide, Yassar Talal al-Zahrani and Salah Ali Abdullah Ahmed al-Salami, were properly detained as enemy combatants and therefore their families' lawsuit is barred from the court system.

The Obama administration sometimes crosses over into the terrorist rights supporter camp, but not this time. The administration gets many things wrong. It's worth noting when it gets something right.

Suddenly Guantanamo Is Looking Good

Remember all the whining about how terrible the Guantanamo prison was, and how we needed to close it because it was damaging America's image? Most of the criticism of the facility was just typical anti-American propaganda, facilitated by useful idiots within our own country. Now it turns out that even the prisoners prefer to stay, rather than be transferred to a a U.S. prison. No wonder. This is what it's like at Guantanamo.

The 221 remaining inmates receive between four and 20 hours outdoor recreation in the Caribbean sun and anything from weekly to almost unlimited access to DVDs and receive three newspapers (USA Today, plus one Egyptian and one Saudi Arabian title) twice a week. Every bed has an arrow pointing towards Mecca and every cell a prayer rug.

Apparently these conditions extend even to the worst of the bunch.

"generally speaking the rules are about the same" for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and the 15 other "high value detainees", who are held at Camp 7, which is out of bounds to the media.

Isn't it nice that a piece of human garbage like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- who should have long since been executed -- is enjoying better conditions than the average U.S. citizen convicted of a non-violent crime like smuggling marijuana?

As the article notes, things are much different in a U.S. supermax facility. It's no surprise that staying at Guantanamo would be preferable.

Why Is He Still Alive?

According to the Australian, Hambali, Al Qaeda's "chief of operations" in Southeast Asia, can't be prosecuted for the Bali bombings because of "lack of evidence." There's near "universal consensus" that he was involved, but apparently direct proof is lacking. Since he's a known leader of Al Qaeda, and tied to other terrorist attacks, he is "almost certain to remain in custody." Isn't that reassuring?

Hambali was captured by the U.S. way back in 2003, and has been at Guantanamo ever since. According to the article, he is

implicated in a string of attacks across Indonesia, including the 2003 attack on Jakarta's Marriott Hotel that claimed 12 lives and a series of Christmas Eve church bombings that killed 19.

This situation is a prime example of foolish legalism, and the stupidity of pretending that non-state terrorists should be prosecuted as if they were a normal criminals. This individual is a leader of an organization at war with the U.S., one which deliberately targeted our civilian population, has signed no treaties, obeys no laws, and deserves no consideration or rights whatsoever. 

We have held Hambali for six years, and are currently wasting time and resources trying to prove him guilty of crimes, as if his status as an Al Qaeda leader were somehow in doubt. He should have been summarily executed long ago, after we extracted every bit of useful intelligence that he had.

Obama & "Indefinite Detention"

Terrorist rights proponents are up in arms about reports that the president is putting together an executive order "that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely." But for those who assign a higher priority to national security than to the imaginary "rights" of hostile aliens, such an executive order is necessary.

It appears that there are certain individuals held at Guantanamo, (and probably elsewhere), who are known to be terrorist enemies, yet cannot be prosecuted -- even by military tribunal. A tribunal of the type envisioned by President Bush (but never implemented) might have been able to handle them, but Obama has made it clear that his idea of tribunals would not have the kind of wide latitude necessary to handle these special cases. The most obvious example is the case of a terrorist who is implicated by evidence obtained through torture. Even if the information against him checked out, the use of torture means that it can't be used in civilian court. Whether it could be used in a military tribunal remains to be seen. But there are other possible cases where even a military tribunal probably wouldn't be able to convict. For example...

Iraqi A is an important tribal leader, and a trusted and valuable informant for U.S. forces. Over a couple of years, he clandestinely gives critical intelligence to U.S. commanders. Any information that could be confirmed was always accurate. One day he tells the local U.S. commander, 

"I have learned that Iraqi B is the commander of Al Qaeda in this region. He has been coordinating attacks against your troops."

The U.S. finds and arrests Iraqi B on the word of Iraqi A, a trusted and proven informant. Iraqi B is shipped to Guantanamo. The U.S. sees an immediate decrease in insurgent activity after his capture. The local commander is absolutely convinced that Iraqi A's information was correct, and that Iraqi B is an Al Qaeda leader

During his time in Guantanamo, Iraqi B maintains his innocence. There is no other evidence against him other than the word of Iraqi A, and the resulting decrease in insurgent attacks. The U.S. is convinced that he's an Al Qaeda terrorist. If he's tried in civilian court he will go free. The U.S. has nothing on him but hearsay from a witness who can't be identified, and wouldn't testify in court if he were. Even a military tribunal would probably have to turn him loose based on a lack of hard evidence. In cases like these the Obama administration has two basic options: one, release someone that it is convinced is a terrorist; or two, find a way to keep holding him. Fortunately for the country, it appears that the administration will choose option number two. 

More on the Uighur Situation

Yesterday I posted about the U.S. transfer of 17 Uighurs to Palau. Today there was this reaction from China.

China on Thursday called on the United States to return "Chinese Muslim terrorists" held at Guantanamo Bay, instead of sending them to the Pacific island nation of Palau. ... China holds the unswerving stand that the US should stop handing over the terrorists to any third country, so as to expatriate them to China at an early date ... "China urges the US to implement the UN Security Council's relevant resolutions and its international obligations on counter-terrorism,"

Congratulations to President Obama for managing to actively annoy the Chinese for no good reason. I'm sure they'll be ready and willing to cooperate with us on terrorism matters in the future. They won't bring up the Uighur situation the next time we need their assistance.  I'm not opposed to angering China about matters where our national interest clashes with theirs, but to do so on behalf of some Guantanamo prisoners is extremely foolish.

U.S. Buys Housing in Palau

We been trying to give away our Guantanamo Uighurs for a while now and had no takers. But Palau has finally agreed to take seventeen of them, for the measly sum of 200 million dollars. What a deal! Let's see. On the one hand we could have just sent them to China. The Chinese wanted them, and they would have taken them for free.  That might have helped relations with China and possibly created some consideration the next time the U.S. wanted China to take a particular action. On the other hand, we could pay Palau 200 million dollars in taxpayer money to take them. Naturally Obama went with the Palau option. Pay lots of taxpayer money and get nothing for it -- that pretty much sums up the Obama administration.

The Uighurs Again

The Obama administration isn't willing to go along with the nutcases who think we should release Guantanamo prisoners into the U.S.  The administration

asked the U.S. Supreme Court Friday to reject a request for a hearing from 17 Chinese Muslims currently being held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, arguing they have no right to come to America despite a district judge's orders

The whole idea of releasing them into the U.S. is completely insane. These people have been held prisoner by the U.S. for years. If they weren't enemies of our country before, they certainly now have a good reason to hold a grudge. Fortunately, it appears that the Obama administration is more responsible than many of its supporters. It is busy shopping the Uighurs to various countries, but finding no takers. 

There is a very simple solution to the Uighur problem. These individuals are wanted by China. We don't need to find another country to take them. Just send them to China. This is a win-win situation for the U.S. We get rid of them, and at the same time we are able to do a favor for China. Plus it costs us nothing. Problem solved.

Military Tribunals for Guantanamo Prisoners

According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration is getting ready to revive the Bush administration's idea of using "military commissions" to try prisoners -- albeit under "under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protection." Assuming the article is correct, this is mostly good news.

It's good news because it demonstrates that the Obama administration is facing reality -- that allowing foreign terror suspects access to the civilian court system would be both stupid and dangerous. As usual with the Obama administration, however, there is also some bad news.  The new military commission rules

block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys

Excluding evidence of any kind is idiotic. Evidence gained by coercive interrogation, if it can be independently confirmed, is no different than evidence gained by any other means. Even evidence which cannot be verified should at least be heard and evaluated.

When dealing with alien terror suspects, the first priority of the U.S. should be U.S. security and interests -- not the imaginary rights of suspect enemies. Hopefully the Obama administration's nod to "greater legal protection" for these prisoners will not result in the U.S. freeing any actual terrorists. But there is more good news. A spokesman for Amnesty International and the head of the ACLU both reacted with horror at the thought of new military commissions. Here's Tom Parker of Amnesty:

"This is an extraordinary development, and it's going to tarnish the image of American justice again,"

and Anthony Romero of the ACLU:

"We'll litigate this before they can proceed, absolutely,"..."Any effort to tinker with military commissions would be an enormous mistake. There is no way to fix a flawed process that has not rendered justice."

Neither of these organizations cares the slightest bit about U.S. interests as they pertain to national security. The ACLU, which was founded to protect the rights of Americans -- and sometimes actually does that -- is currently engaged in a major effort to create rights for our enemies.  The fact that Amnesty & the ACLU are so upset about this development indicates that the Obama administration is moving in the right direction.

Another Brilliant Idea from Obama

According to the LA Times, the Obama administration is

preparing to admit into the United States as many as seven Chinese Muslims who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay

Obama has already done plenty of highly questionable things, but this would be amazingly stupid.  First, it's completely unnecessary to risk releasing them in the U.S. The Chinese are not only willing to take them back, they have formally requested that the prisoners be returned to China to stand trial "for separatist activities." Releasing them instead will annoy China for no good reason.

Second, the prisoners have been held in Guantanamo since 2002. They've been sitting in a U.S. prison for about seven years. What are the odds that they might have developed some hostility toward the U.S. during that time, whether they were originally hostile or not?

Releasing any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay into the U.S. is insane. Hopefully the administration will come to its senses.

The Strange Case of Binyam Mohamed

Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed was released to Britain today. His case illustrates just how difficult it is to draw any certain conclusions about the Guantanamo detainees. Based on publicly available information, many things about this case do not add up.

The BBC has a profile of Mohamed found here. He is an Ethiopian who was resident in Britain. He converts to Islam in 2001, and goes first to Pakistan and then to Afghanistan. He attends an Al Qaeda training camp. Although he claims he wasn't fighting against the U.S., he admits to being at the camp. That pretty clearly identifies him as a jihadi terrorist. After that things get really murky.

Mohamed is arrested in Pakistan. He is then sent to Morocco for 18 months. He claims he was tortured in both places. In 2004 he's transferred to Afghanistan (where he again says he was tortured), and finally ends up at Guantanamo. In 2007 the UK asks for his release, but the U.S. thinks he's part of the so-called dirty bomb plot and charges him with various crimes. But charges are dropped in October 2008. And now he's released to Britain. Assuming this narrative is all or partly true -- and that's a gigantic assumption -- it raises various questions that I haven't seen anyone asking.

1. If Mohamed was being tortured for information in Pakistan, why was it necessary to send him to Morocco? Do they have better torturers than Pakistan?

2. Why is he in Morocco for a year and a half?

3. Why is he sent back to Afghanistan after all that?

4. Three years after he was captured, he ends up in Guantanamo. Why? Presumably after three years of interrogating him, we know everything we are going to know about him. Why bother bringing him to Gitmo? If he's the dangerous terrorist we think he is, why not just dispose of him in Afghanistan?

5. Why charge him and then drop the charges? We've had years to make a case against him. If we know the evidence is no good because of torture, why even bother charging him in the first place?

6. Why do the British care one bit what happens to him? He's not a British citizen and he's a known terrorist. He was a resident who left to become a jihadi in the Middle East. Why do they want him released at all, let alone want him back in Britain? Are they just stupid? Do they have a special immigration quota for allowing Islamic terrorists into Britain that needs to be filled?

Nothing about this case makes much sense at all. The British are welcome to him. Maybe they'll be dumb enough to take any other terrorists we want to release. It doesn't hurt to ask.