Why is the American Government Releasing Guantanamo Prisoners?

Townhall.com ^ | July 28, 2007 | Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

[Kaslin]

Calling him a "senior Taliban commander," The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Abdullah Mehsud blew himself up at his hide-out in the town of Zhob in southwestern Baluchistan Province in Pakistan, rather than surrender to government forces.

But what was he doing commanding Taliban troops in the first place? Mehsud had been captured by American forces in northern Afghanistan in December 2001 and sent to the Guantanamo Detention Center.

The reason he was able to resume his duties as a Taliban commander is because we released him from Guantanamo in March 2004. The Times reported that "upon his return to the region, he took up arms again and soon became the Taliban commander of South Waziristan, a tribal area near the border with Afghanistan."

Mehsud is suspected of being the mastermind behind the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers in 2004, one of whom was killed.

So the question, not asked by The Times, of course, is why on earth did we free Mehsud in the first place, permitting him to go back to his day job as a guerilla and terrorist leader?

The answer is as obvious as it is depressing: pressure from human rights activists and their journalistic accomplices throughout the world. In the past few years, we have released hundreds of detainees and most face no charges in their native countries when they are repatriated.

But those who lock up in Guantanamo are dangerous people. A recent Pentagon study showed that most are fully conversant with explosives, high-tech rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. The study said that 73 percent of those under detention in 2004 and 2005 were "demonstrated threats" to the United States.

In most wars, prisoners are not released until the conflict has ended for exactly the same reason — to prevent them from returning to enemy lines and resuming the battle. But, as a result of the misplaced sympathy of the global liberal community, Guantanamo Bay Detention Center has become far too much of a revolving door through which terrorists are returned to their country of origin, courtesy of the U.S. government, to take up arms against us again. This is a crazy, short-sighted policy.

But the good news in the death of Mehsud is that it indicates that Pakistan’s President Musharraf has become serious about raiding al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. In this region, where Usama bin Laden is likely hiding out, local warlords, protected by a cease-fire deal with Musharraf, have been safe from Pakistan and American troops. But with the renewal of conflict between the Musharaff regime and the militant Muslims, the cease fire is off and the raid that led to Mehsud’s death proves it.

Now it is time for the United States to take over the hunt for bin Laden and send our troops across the border into Pakistan in search of the elusive terrorist. Nothing could underscore the smashing success of Bush’s war on terror than the apprehension of slaying of bin Laden.

Until now, our alliance with Musharaff and our perceived need to abide by his cease-fire has inhibited us from crossing the border to hunt for the terrorist. But now that the cease fire is a dead letter, perhaps we can free ourselves to go in after him.

And, in the meantime, let’s stop releasing terrorists from Guantanamo!

[live+let_live]

Kindness and understanding are no way to run a war.

[Diogenesis]

This is America over its first two centuries, at a time when its
citizens ruled the country with liberty, justice, and freedom for all,
until a treasonous Congress arrived to change all that.

[SIDENET]

It's the "New Tone".

It's been such a stunning success everywhere else, so why not use it with terrorists?

[Constitutional Patriot]

Perhaps to see where they go and monitor/observe communications. That’s the only reason I wouldn’t heave their satanic a$$es out of the plane over the Atlantic at 30,000 feet.

[Raycpa]

Liberal answer: The guy was a peace loving, harmless individual until we tortured him.

[kylaka]

It’s Kerry’s kinder gentler war. Except for the 3600 US servicemen who have died fighting it. But then again, maybe Osama and his band of merrymakers did them a favor, given that those servicemen lived in such an oppressed nation.

[George W. Bush]

At some point and sooner than later, the courts won't tolerate them being held for an indefinite term and under indefinte charges. They will have to be processed legally one way or another. Although in a foreign country, they are on a U.S. base and are not legitimate combatants.

Bush should have disposed of them long ago or released the non-dangerous ones quicker. They could have been released (videotape, witnesses) in Afghanistan in an area where our Afghan allies were waiting to deal with them, leaving our hands clean. No trials, no propaganda victory.

There can be no surprise that the courts will become involved. They don't like to share their monopoly.

[silverleaf]

Actually “tag and release” programs might do the job of neutralizing these psychopaths more effectively than housing and humoring them at US taxpayer expense, and boost the Pakistan economy as bounty seekers head out for some hunting. In fact we could equip each released terrorist with a pinger code that identifies how much bounty he’s worth. And award bonus points for collateral damage.

[Redbob]

I wouldn’t mind a bit if they were releasing the Guantanameros...

from say 10,000 feet over the Atlantic.

[AdmSmith]

10 feet is OK as well...

[Bringbackthedraft]

“I wouldn’t mind a bit if they were releasing the Guantanameros...from say 10,000 feet over the Atlantic.”

Yeah, that’s the ticket. Right where Major Owens (D. Rep. NYC NY) says the sharks are, waiting to be fed since the end of the slave trade. (150 YRS AGO - They really are old sharks by now, hope they still have their teeth or atleast new dentures.)

[nuconvert]

Bump