By Andrew C. McCarthy
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Less than a week ago, French lawmakers voted to extend
the state of emergency initiated in November after the Paris jihadist attacks
that left 130 dead and 367 wounded. By law, the emergency status vests police
with expanded powers to conduct raids, seize property, and detain persons
without judicial oversight, much less trial.
It was impossible not to think of France this morning as
President Obama once again agitated for the closing of the detention camp at
Guantanamo Bay. It is an unkept promise to the hard Left from his 2008 campaign
that the president has been working on since his first full day in office seven
years ago.
The case has not gotten better with time, unless we
factor in the extortionate tactics of the community organizer. Obama has
released so many jihadists to other countries that the Gitmo prisoner
population is down to 91 (according to the New
York Times). Obama, in his brass knuckles way, is telling Congress, “Either
shutter this place or I’ll spring even more committed terrorists to return to
the jihad.” The threat is his most persuasive argument.
The rest of his case is as preposterous as it ever was.
Or worse, actually. The president claims that our allies in the fight against
“violent extremism” are dismayed by Gitmo’s continuing operation. Really? Does anyone really believe that
the French are worried about Guantanamo
Bay when they have suspended their own civil-liberties protections to deal
with the prospect of more mass-murder attacks? How about other European
countries grappling with the fallout of “migrants” overrunning their
territories? Think Gitmo is at the top of their list?
The most laughable claim Obama makes is that Gitmo drives
terrorist recruitment. This has always been a specious assertion, made all the
more remarkable now by Obama’s campaign to bring thousands of unvettable Syrian
“migrants” into our country — on top of the hundreds of thousands of foreigners
from Islamic countries who have come to the United States during Obama’s
presidency. For the guy who is bringing the recruits here in droves to fret
about recruitment is even more precious than is the urging of Gitmo’s closing
as a cost-saving measure by the guy who has added $10 trillion to the national
debt in just over seven years.
In any event, I’ve responded to the recruitment point
several times, most recently after the San Bernardino attack in December:
[T]here are two things that drive terrorist recruitment. The first is
Islamic supremacism. In a West ever more indifferent to religion and entranced
by the smug assumption that our “values” are universal, the power of a conquest
ideology cloaked in religion eludes us. But it seizes our enemies and burns like
a fire inside them. While Obama sees America as something to apologize for,
Islamists portray their jihad as the road to esteem in this life and bounty in
the next. It is a heinous belief system, but belief in something always beats
belief in nothing.
The second driver of terrorist
recruitment is the perception that the jihadists are winning, the conviction
that they will ultimately prevail. Osama bin Laden wooed young Muslims with the
wisdom that people are always drawn to the strong horse and shun the weak one.
While Islamic State “caliph” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi follows up each jihadist
atrocity by seizing more territory and enslaving more subjects, the president
of the United States follows each jihadist atrocity — Benghazi, Paris, and now
San Bernardino — by releasing more jihadists from Gitmo.
It’s not Gitmo driving recruitment. It’s our president.
In truth, Muslims don’t care a whit about Guantanamo Bay. I prosecuted
one of the world’s most notorious terrorists in the mid ’90s, the “Blind Sheikh,”
Omar Abdel Rahman, who formed the cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing in New York. He got the gold-plated due process of a civilian
trial and all the trimmings of top-shelf civilian prison — no Gitmo for him.
And you know what? Islamic supremacists continue to condemn his incarceration
and jihadists have killed scores of people to try to extort his release. They
don’t care where we detain jihadists;
they care that we detain jihadists.
Does Obama think we should release all the terrorists in federal
penitentiaries, too? You know, to depress recruitment . . .
Because it is Islamic supremacism and the perception of victory that
draws young Muslims to the jihad, the brute fact is: It’s not detaining
terrorists at Gitmo that spurs recruitment; it’s releasing them. Muslims who
wage war against America and are held in our prisons become icons of the jihad.
They rise from obscurity to legend, and their status imbues them with authority
to command attacks, raise funds, and attract recruits.
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was planned at Attica Prison in
upstate New York, urged on by inmate Sayyid Nosair, who’d become a jihadi hero
by murdering Meir Kahane. From stateside civilian custody, Nosair was able to
make recruitment tapes, meet young Muslims, and plot new attacks with his
jihadist visitors.
That can’t happen at remote Guantanamo Bay, an offshore military
installation. I’d tell you not to take my word for it and go ask Ibrahim Qosi.
But he’s not at Gitmo anymore. Thanks to President Obama, he’s back in the
jihad, [running al Qaeda’s franchise in Yemen and] recruiting new terrorists.
It is simply a fact that released terrorists and
terrorists imprisoned in stateside civilian penitentiaries have a proven
history of recruiting for, fundraising for, planning, and inspiring jihadist
attacks. Besides the aforementioned planning of the 1993 WTC bombing from
Attica, I’ve further recounted:
The 1993 WTC bombers, despite being in maximum security conditions,
managed to communicate by letter with al-Qaeda cells in Spain. Attorney Lynne
Stewart, among others, was convicted for helping the Blind Sheikh run his
Egyptian terrorist organization, al-Gama’a
al-Islamiyya or “the Islamic Group,” from his high-security U.S. prison
confinement. Osama bin Laden, moreover, credit[ed] the Blind Sheikh with
issuing the fatwa that approved the 9/11 attacks from the same confinement. . .
. Referring to the United States, Abdel Rahman implored, “Muslims everywhere,
dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their
corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their
ships, and shoot down their planes, kill them on land, at sea, and in the air.
Kill them wherever you find them!”
Relatedly, quite apart from the Lynne Stewart case, terrorists have been
known to use their lawyers, paralegals, and investigators to communicate
messages to each other and to the outside world. You don’t need to believe that
the lawyers et al. are willingly complicit in this (they could be being duped)
in order to grasp that it is a major problem. Obviously, it is a far bigger
problem if it is going on inside the U.S. than at Gitmo.
Besides refuting the recruitment canard and accounting
for the capacity of imprisoned and released jihadists to inspire terrorism, it
is worth rehearsing several other reasons why closing Gitmo remains a terrible
idea, which I’ve outlined before:
The Violence to Facilitate Escape or Release
Concern. While it would be virtually impossible for an inmate in a
stateside supermax facility to escape, that makes little difference to members
of terrorist organizations who are at large and who constantly plot either
direct escape attempts or other acts of terrorism aimed at extorting the
release of their imprisoned cohorts. To quote again from the Lynne Stewart
terrorism-case indictment in New York, the Blind Sheik recorded a message from
his American civilian prison to his followers worldwide, stating that it was
“the duty of all Muslims to set free any imprisoned fellow Muslims,” and that
“[t]he Sheikh is calling on you, morning and evening. Oh Muslims! Oh Muslims!
And he finds no respondents. It is a duty upon all the Muslims around the world
to come to free the Sheikh, and to rescue him from his jail.”
So, for example, when the WTC was bombed in 1993, the
other top project on the cell’s agenda was breaking Nosair out of Attica. When
the WTC bombers were arrested, their co-conspirators plotted several atrocities
(a conspiracy to murder Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on a trip to New York
and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks) which, in part, were designed (as
they discussed in recorded conversations) to induce American authorities to
release the prisoners.
Further, to quote again from the Stewart indictment, in
1996, a statement, issued in the name of the Islamic Group, responded to the
Blind Sheikh’s sentence of life imprisonment by threatening, “All American
interests will be legitimate targets for our struggle until the release of
Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his brothers. As the American Government has opted
for open confrontation with the Islamic movement and the Islamic symbols of
struggle, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya
swears by God to its irreversible vow to take an eye for an eye.” In 1997, the
organization reiterated: “The Islamic Group declares all American interests
legitimate targets to its legitimate jihad until the release of all prisoners,
on top of whom [is the Blind Sheikh].” Later in 1997, over 50 tourists were
slaughtered in Luxor, Egypt, by members of the Islamic Group. As the
afore-quoted indictment recounts: “The torso of one victim was slit by the
terrorists and a leaflet calling for Abdel Rahman’s release was inserted.”
The Stewart indictment adds:
In or about March 2000, individuals claiming association with the Abu
Sayyaf terrorist group kidnapped approximately 29 hostages in the Philippines,
demanded the release from prison of Abdel Rahman and two other convicted
terrorists in exchange for the release of those hostages, and threatened to
behead hostages if their demands were not met. Philippine authorities later
found two decomposed, beheaded bodies in an area where the hostages had been
held, and four hostages were “unaccounted for.”
On or about September 21, 2000, an Arabic television station, Al
Jazeera, televised a meeting of Usama Bin Laden (leader of the al-Qaeda
terrorist organization), Ayman al Zawahiri (former leader of the Egyptian
Islamic Jihad organization and one of Bin Laden’s top lieutenants), and [Rifa'i
Ahmad Taha Musa, the then-leader of the Islamic Group]. Sitting under a banner
which read, “Convention to Support Honorable Omar Abdel Rahman,” the three
terrorist leaders pledged to free Abdel Rahman from incarceration in the United
States. During the meeting, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, . . . a son of Abdel Rahman,
was heard encouraging others to “avenge your Sheikh” and “go to the spilling of
blood.”
Obviously, some of this would happen whether prisoners
were incarcerated in the U.S. or not, but concerns about escape plots will
cause major security issues in states, cities, and towns where the prisoners
are held.
The Violence Against Prison Guards Concern.
Among the highest-ranking members of al-Qaeda ever brought to the U.S. for
civilian trial is Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, one of the network’s founders who was
indicted in the 1998 embassy bombings case. He never stood trial for those
atrocities, however. That’s because he attempted to murder Bureau of Prisons
guard Louis Pepe (by sticking a shiv through his eye and several inches into
his brain). Interestingly, Salim chose a meeting with his U.S. taxpayer-funded
defense lawyers — ostensibly for “trial preparation” — as the perfect time to
execute his escape plot. He was planning to kidnap the lawyers to facilitate
the escape of himself and other terrorists.
Meanwhile, in 2006, Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal
Foundation induced the Pentagon, under the Freedom of Information Act, to
disclose reports documenting hundreds of assaults on prison guards at
Guantanamo Bay. In addition, the information released in connection with
combatant status review tribunals refers to plenty of inmate violence. Again,
these would be concerns wherever the prisoners were incarcerated, but it is far
better to have these problems in a military facility outside the U.S.
The Increased Risk that Terrorists Will Be
Released by Courts. Finally, it is worth observing that Islamists and
leftists protesting Gitmo are not so much against the prison camp in Cuba as
they are against detention without trial under the laws of war. That situation
would continue even if the prisoners were brought into our country. Remember,
we are talking about trained jihadists who are known, based on solid
intelligence (including years of interviews), to be a danger to the United
States, but who cannot be tried because evidence against them is either
inadmissible because it was obtained in wartime outside due-process rules, or
cannot be used because it would jeopardize intelligence methods, sources, and
information-sharing agreements with foreign allies.
The difference, however, is that once the prisoners were
moved into the United States, they would unquestionably be within the
jurisdiction of federal courts, including nearly 400 judges whom President
Obama will have appointed by the time he leaves office. Many of these judges are
innately hostile to indefinite detention without trial under military protocols
rather than civilian due process. Thus, the chance that terrorists would be
ordered to be released from custody would be markedly increased. While the
jihadists are at Gitmo, all the courts can really do is rule that there is an
inadequate basis to hold them as enemy combatants; when that happens, the
executive branch holds them at Gitmo until it finds a country willing to take
them — however long that takes. But once the terrorists are here, if the courts
rule detention is illegal and the executive branch cannot find countries
willing to accept the detainees, it is easy to foresee judges ordering their
release within our borders.
Closing Guantanamo Bay is not a priority, much less a
necessity. There will be abundant reason to keep it operational indefinitely.
If it is to be shuttered, that should be done by a responsible
commander-in-chief who acknowledges that the civilian-justice system is not
designed to deal with enemy combatants and who is willing to cooperate with
Congress in fashioning a legal framework for wartime detention, interrogation,
and trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment