The Gitmo Plan
by: Will Blakley
On February 2nd, 2009 President Obama may have realized that he might have bit off more than he can chew by stating that he’s a bit concerned that the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the terrorists that are soon to be released are likely to turn around and attack the United States again. When taking office Obama has made it a point to close the army prison within a year, but I ask why? According to a recent Gallup poll 50% of Americans oppose the closing, while only 44% agree, to me that says that even though a majority of the Country doesn’t want it to close Obama is still going to because that’s what he feels is right, not what the country wants.
According to our President, Guantanamo Bay stands for being a symbol of torture and abuse of human rights to its detainees. So let me get this right, terrorists who support radical acts of violence towards innocent humans should be treated the same as other humans? Obama goes on to claim “…if we don’t uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time, that will make us less safe.” Make us less Safe? By taking some of the world’s most dangerous terrorist and keeping them out of harm’s way, how is this going to make us less safe? Secondly these people are not part of our country so they don’t follow the beliefs of our constitution and certainly don’t follow our value system. I don’t see what the point is, I feel that we are in fact doing a favor to the world by keeping them “off the streets.”
Pentagon officials state that 61 released Gitmo detainees rejoined al Qaeda and the Taliban. In total, roughly 7% of those that are transferred from US custody return to terrorist activities. It is estimated that there are currently 250 jihadists currently being held at Gitmo, which equates to roughly 18 who could potentially return to terrorist activities once released, but who’s to say that that 7% is an accurate fact? If the Obama administration is going to make it easier for terrorists to carry out violent acts, why wouldn’t more return to their former terrorist organizations?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney stated a few days later that there is “a high probability” of a nuclear or biological attack in the future and feels that some of the new policies that are being taken into effect are going to make it easier. Cheney questions the administrations priorities in the war on terror, “If you release the hardcore terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think that they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks.”
Long Island GOP Rep. Peter King states “I don’t think the Obama administration thought this proposal through, or anticipated what the reaction would be.” I agree with King 100%, especially when you don’t even have the majority of the country wanting the army prison to be closed, why would you go and do what you feel is right when your job as president is to act as the representative of the people? Obama says that him and his administration will present a plan within 6 months on where to place the detainees. This is going to be an interesting proposal because when they first announced that they were going to be closing the prison down and asked where they could move the detainees too, no one was willing to take them. That’s because who wants to host so many dangerous criminals especially when Guantanamo has been so successful in the past?
So once again I have to ask why did the Democrats go and mess with a policy that has been effective in the past? I just don’t see the logic in stirring the pot in this one. Terrorists that are being held here have committed acts that have shown no regard for human life, especially American ones. After being held captive by the United States I feel that we have only fueled their fires for returning and getting vengeance on us. Let’s just hope for all our sake that this doesn’t come back to bite us. Just like with Daschle, let’s hope that Obama won’t have to go on record saying “I screwed up,” because that line will only work so many times.
