Change?

I'm scratching my head reading this story: Obama mulls 'indefinite detention' of terror suspects

President Barack Obama's "administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on US soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay," The Wall Street Journal said.

Can somebody tell me how the Obama Administration is different from Bush's?

I not somebody who gets too upset about Gitmo. It's hard to figure out what to do with terrorist guerrillas that you've picked up on the battlefield. It's not like a soldier serving in a national, regular army. However, I don't think people had this in mind when Obama promised to shut down the detention center at Guantanamo. Wasn't it about due process, not merely geography?

Listen To Terrorists

After the 9-11 terrorist attacks, I found it a little disturbing that many in the west were quick to make excuses as to why the act was perpertrated. Ralph Peters asks us to listen to what the terrorists say first:

Yet, no matter how fiercely our enemies declare that their faith compels them to kill, our elected and appointed officials continue to insist that the terrorists don't understand themselves - that they're really driven by economic factors or our own foreign-policy missteps, that their savage interpretation of Islam is only a ploy . . .

Shouldn't we pay just a little attention to what our enemies say about themselves?
Radical Islam isn't just a smokescreen. Jihad is real. And it ain't about who got the Coca-Cola franchise in Khartoum.

As I seethe through DC meetings (always careful to wash thoroughly afterward), I'm continually disheartened by the contortions of "experts" determined to prove that enemies who regard death as a promotion aren't really devout, that they just need hugs and massive amounts of aid.

(...)

In the Greater Middle East, even lackadaisical Muslims have been molded by the legacy of 13 centuries of Islam. Thus Mom thinks it a splendid thing that her son strapped on a bomb and became a martyr by murdering 40 innocents in a market.

Her culture admires that "sacrifice." Ours doesn't.

Listen to the Gitmo Five. Unlike our Washington pols, they have intellectual integrity. They're telling us honestly who they are and why they seek to kill us.

Our response? "They don't know what they're talking about."

Harper Holds Firm With Khadr

Stephen Harper is keeping his cool and is not in a rush to bring grenade lobber Omar Khadr "home". (story)

Stephen Harper said Friday he rejects the premise that Omar Khadr was a "child soldier" because the young Canadian was not a member of an army when he was accused a lobbing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.

Far from backing down to mounting pressure to repatriate Mr. Khadr, Mr. Harper said he will not make any decisions until he finds out whether the U.S. is going to drop murder charges.

(...)

"As you know, Mr. Khadr is charged with some serious offences, and we'll have to see what the resolution of that particular issue is, but we have no indication at the moment of any withdrawal of charges."

This is a good point. Khadr was born in Canada, and his father was an Egyptian. He wasn't in an army. And, it's not like he was some innocent kid born and raised in a village in Afghanistan when US soldiers appeared and he had to protect his home.

What's the hurry to get this guy back? He blew up a medic with a grenade. Let's take a breath before we welcome him to Canada.

Arar Case Heating Up Again

Here's an appalling piece of journalism from the Ottawa Citizen. (Listed under "News" not "Opinion", and not credited to an individual writer.) There have always been big questions about the Arar case, but the Citizen does not want us to ask.

The revelation about Mr. Arar emerged during a hearing at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay First, let's get something on the table. Everything that comes out of that gulag is suspect.

A "gulag." Talk about loaded language. Omar Khadr is a well documented prisoner and has confessed to his actions. It's not some secret gulag, because we know all about it. It is not the same as millions and millions of Soviet citizens disappearing at night to be deported to Siberia to spend the rest of their short lives in agony. Shame on them for cheapening the word.

A Canadian citizen of Syrian origin, Maher Arar has always denied any terrorist ties, and has always denied ever having been in Afghanistan. Canadian security officials once thought otherwise. So did U.S. officials, who in 2002 secretly deported Mr. Arar to Syria, where he was tortured.

Funny how The Citizen talks about rules of evidence, when there is no evidence, other than his word, that Arar was tortured. They write it as fact though.

It's odd that now, all these months later, an FBI representative suddenly produces seemingly definitive evidence that perhaps Mr. Arar was not all he pretended to be.

Is is that surprising, since, you know, there is a hearing going on? The US have always maintained that he was guilty.

This is not good enough to convict Mr. Arar in the court of public opinion, or any other court. (Needless to say, even if he had spent time in Afghanistan, that wouldn't have justified his rendition to Syria and torture there.)

It also wouldn't have justified Canada paying him $10.5 million either.

But so far as Maher Arar is concerned, there's never been evidence that he poses, or has posed, a security threat to anyone. If anything, he and his wife Monia Mazigh have embraced their public roles with dignity and humility -- writing books, giving interviews, even (in the case of Ms. Mazigh) running for political office. Surely by now they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Well, yes there is evidence, and why should we give them the benefit of doubt?

Again, this Western Standard article about the questions from the Arar case is must read.

BC Hippy Hunger Strikes for Khadr

And he speaks to the CBC about it:

My take: I decided to protest against the unfair and illegal treatment and detention of Omar Khadr, who was a young soldier that, regardless of which 'side' he was involved with, should have been granted a minimum of protection from the Canadian authorities.

Nationalism certainly is dead when a "side" is dismissed as an arbitrary thing.

No word yet if he's abstaining from smoking dope.

UPDATE: They link to his Facebook page, check this out:

Contact Info
Office: Cold but sweet VW Van
Location:Whatever one my wheels decide to venture on

No, I didn't make that up.

Leave Omar Khadr in Guantanamo

Of all the things in the world, I can't understand why terrorist, grenade lobber and "Canadian" Omar Khadr is the poster boy for unlawful imprisonment. Damaged goods Senator Romeo Dallaire wants to make a personal appeal to president-elect Obama to set him free, CBC reports.

Dallaire said Obama should put a stay of proceedings on the trials of Guantanamo detainees, then begin talks with the Canadian government to work out a process to return the Toronto-born Khadr home for rehabilitation and re-integration.
...

At a news conference, Dallaire said he has received no help from the Canadian government in his attempts to aid Khadr, and suggested Prime Minister Stephen Harper's lack of action in the case was "unstatesmanlike."

Bring him back to his terrorist family? They are open supporters of terrorism and Al Qaeda! They had personal contacts with bin Laden! Canadian troops are fighting these people!

Daniel Pipes has an extensive chronology of the Khadr family and their support of bin Laden, jihad, Al Qaeda and terrorism. (Full article)

Or watch this 60 Minutes piece about our innocent little child and his openly jihad, and suicide bombing supporting family. (video)

I don't get it. It gives pause that the kid was 15, but I knew making bombs and throwing grenades were wrong at that age. I don't know why we are making such an effort to bring this turd back.

Why is releasing this guy such a popular cause? Is the CBC and other Canadian media so blind with Anti-Americanism that they champion this guy? That's my guess. It's insane.

Debating Gitmo

The Wall Street Journal has an Op-Ed by William McGurn about how Obama's promise to close the detention centre at Guantanamo is not as simple as it seems:

What the American people need today is a sensible policy that recognizes three facts: that terrorists present a unique challenge to our rules of war; that capturing and holding terrorists is different from capturing and holding criminals or prisoners of war; and that the men and women who set up Guantanamo did so not because they were out to shred the Constitution but because, faced with some very imperfect choices, this was thought to be the best way to protect the American people.

It always struck me how quickly people would get outraged over the detention of "illegal combatants." It's against the Geneva Conventions! They scream. However, the enemy here is stateless, doesn't wear a uniform and blends into the civilian population. What part of the Geneva Conventions are they following? (Isn't the whole point of the agreement is that it's reciprocal? We won't play dirty if you won't?) Knowing the American and coalition troops are not allowed to wantonly fire on civilians, they use this to their advantage. If innocent people get killed, then it's a bonus for them. So while Gitmo is troublesome because it's not quite clean legally, I can't summon the outrage to feel that it's unfair.