Obama Backs Bush Policy, Guantanamo up to Geneva Convention Standards: It's Different, When You're in Charge

This is a dark day for people who see Code Pink as a group of centrist moderates, and agree with professor Churchill's views on American guilt.

Guantanamo Prison Humane, Pentagon Recommends More Prayer and Group Recreation

Human rights groups aren't happy with the report President Obama ordered last month, about the appalling, degrading, awful, disgusting, terrible, brutal - - - you get the idea - - - conditions that an oppressive regime forces Islamic activists to endure at Guantanamo.

The Pentagon came up with the wrong answers.

The report apparently found that conditions at Guantanamo were humane, according to Geneva Convention standards. America's military did have some recommendations, though. Particularly troublesome prisoners should get more time for prayer, and for group recreation.

As the Los Angeles Times put it, "Rights groups criticize the findings." (LAT)

Bagram Airfield Detainees: Obama Confirms Bush Policy

President Barack Obama's administration made an important decision: Detainees at Bagram Airfield, in Afghanistan, don't have the same rights as American citizens.

They can't use American courts to challenge their detention.

That policy was set during the Bush administration: part of President Bush's efforts to wage a successful war on terror.

This didn't go down very well in some quarters.

" 'The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we'd hoped,' said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram Airfield. 'We all expected better.' " (AP)

My reaction is "I had feared worse."

But, I had hoped that Barack Obama, once he was at sitting at the desk where the buck stops, would behave responsibly.

America is at war, and although it's important to live up to this country's high standards: It's also prudent to remember who's trying to bring down the country: rights groups, human rights attorneys and all.

Things tend to look different, when you're the one in charge.

More or less related posts:

• "Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri: No Cole Charges - Dandy"
  (February 5, 2009)
• "Inauguration Day, 2009: History Gets Made"
  (January 19, 2009)
• "Pakistan and Mexico Collapse Possible: Why I'm Glad Somebody Else is President"
  (January 14, 2009)

In the news:

• "Guantanamo meets Geneva Convention standards, Pentagon study finds"
  Los Angeles Times (February 21, 2009)
• "Obama backs Bush: No rights for Bagram prisoners"
  The Associated Press (February 20, 2009)

Said Ali al-Shihri: Gitmo Grad Makes Good, or Bad

Depending on where you read the name, it's Susan El-Baneh or Susan Elbaneh. Either way, she's dead, and has been since September of last year.

She'd lived in New York, but went to Yemen to be married. She and her husband were going through the paperwork necessary for the two of them to go back to America. She planned to finish high school, and become a nurse.

She was at the U.S. Embassy in Sana, Yemen, when terrorists bombed the place. As I said, she's dead. So is her husband, and 14 other people.

And, yes: "Susan Elbaneh was related to Yemeni-American Jaber A. Elbaneh, who is on the FBI's 'Most Wanted Terrorists' list for allegedly being the seventh member of the Lackawanna Six, a group of men convicted for providing material support to Al Qaeda...." Her brother, Ahmed Elbaneh, had a few words about the connection. " 'That has nothing to do with my sister,' he said. 'I haven't seen my cousin in 15 years.' " Until there's evidence of a link other than sharing ancestors, I'm inclined to believe him.

The punch line to Susan El-Baneh's death is that Said Ali al-Shihri seems to be involved. "Said Ali al-Shihri" may not be a very familiar name, but American Counterterrorism officials confirmed that Said Ali al-Shihri is the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. And, he's a suspect in the September, 2008, attack.

He was released from Guantanamo in 2007. Now, he's back at work, helping Al Qaeda kill people.

In retrospect, releasing him may not have been a very good idea.

On the other hand, somebody who's written a book says that Said Ali al-Shihri hadn't been in Yemen early enough to have been involved in the bombing. He could be right.

Either way, America is in the process of closing Gitmo, and sending the prisoners elsewhere. Some of them will probably want to go home. Under the circumstances, that might not be a good idea.

Related posts:

• "Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri: No Cole Charges - Dandy"
  (February 5, 2009)
• "Yemen: Terrorists, Tribesmen, and an American Teen"
  (September 18, 2008)

In the news:

• "At Least One American Believed Killed by Freed Gitmo Prisoners"
  FOXNews (February 6, 2009)
• "Barack Obama has issued his orders on Guantanamo but closing it will be tougher"
  Telegraph.co.uk (January 24, 2009)
• "Will "war on terror" survive without Bush?"
  Reuters (February 65, 2009)
• "Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a[!] Qaeda Chief"
  The New York Times (January 22, 2009)

Gitmo Prisoner Released to Saudi Arabia, Graduated from Jihad Rehab, Rejoined Al Qaeda: Success Story?

You've read about it: a Saudi man, Said Ali al-Shihri, had been held at "Gitmo," the Guantanamo (Guantánamo, if you insist) Bay prison for terrorists. Then, he was released, to Saudi Arabia.

As The New York Times put it this morning, "He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen." At least, he's back and with Al Qaeda - according to a website used by terrorists. They may be right.

Al-Shihri was in Gitmo, because he was probably involved in a lethal bombing of the American Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana. After he was released and went home to Saudi Arabia, he went through the desert kingdom's jihad rehab program. And released, as a successful graduate.

Well, more-or-less successful. Looks to me like Yemen is on the Arabian Peninsula, and graduates from Saudi Arabia's jihad rehabilitation program are supposed to lay off acts of terrorism - on the Arabian Peninsula. The rest of us, it seems, are fair game.

Yemen is setting up its own jihad rehab program, according to Arab News. Yemen is getting ready for the 100 or so Yemenis expected to be sprung from Gitmo, now that America has a new administration.

As Arab News put it, "The move triggered outrage among rights activists who said the government’s plan to keep the returnees in a rehabilitation center in their home country only means re-jailing them."

Judging from the Saudi example, I'd say that the 'rights activists' don't have much to worry about. Not about the Gitmo prisoners being re-jailed.

The case of al-Shihri, the jihad rehab programs, and the prisoners at Gitmo brings up an interesting point: Isn't it customary to wait until after a war is over, to release prisoners of war?

As Clive Davis said in the Spectator: "Well, let's hope this has all been thought through."

Related posts:

• "Indonesian Deradicalization Program Working: In Indonesia, at Least"
  (January 15, 2008)
• "Saudi Breakthrough! Jihadists Reformed!! Al Qaeda Members Promise No More Jihad*!!!"
  (November 27, 2007)
  *on the Arabian Peninsula, that is.
• "Jihad Rehab"
  (August 22, 2007)

News and views:

• "Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen"
  The Associated Press (January 23, 2009)
• "Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen"
  (January 23, 2009)
• "Yemen sets up rehab center for Guantanamo returnees"
  Arab News (January 23, 2009)
• "Guantanamo & rendition"
  Spectator.co.uk (January 23, 2009)
• "Freed by U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief "
  The New York Times (January 23, 2009)

Interrogation, Waterboarding, Rights, and Reality Checks

I harangued earlier today about how The New York Times was forced to correct a news story's alternatively accurate subheadline.

America is a nation of laws, and individual rights are important. I am glad to live in a country where, for the most part, the rules are laws forged in a public forum, not whims of the powerful.

End-justifies-the-means arguments make me uncomfortable.

That said, I'm very concerned that many people in news, media, and politics, seem to have lost track of what happened in the autumn of 2001.

After 9/11, New York City was missing several buildings, and about 3,000 people. The Pentagon lost office space and people, and an airliner full of people didn't do too well that day, either.

Those who conceived and planned the 9/11 attack are, for the most part, still around. And they still hate the guts of Americans, and anyone else they regard as insufficiently Islamic.

The people who keep Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and similar organizations running are dedicated to making the world safe for their sort of Islam. That sounds noble, until you realize that their version if Islam includes practices like honor killings, and executing teenagers who wear trousers.

Their version of Islam will not be safe from the infidel until America, western ideals of freedom and tolerance, and a teddy bear named Mohammed are wiped from the face of the earth.

When interrogated, I doubt that they'll cooperate because they think the interrogator plays chess with them, or is a fine fellow.

Making their life unpleasant, with the prospect of less unpleasantness if they provide useful information, seems a reasonable approach.

I don't believe that people should be treated inappropriately. But westerners, and non-westerners who like to wear trousers, play soccer, or do other 'un-Islamic' things, are in deadly peril.

After the fuss about Guantanamo prisoners being abused by being forced to sit on grass, and being given food that wasn't to their liking, it's a little hard to take claims of abuse and torture seriously. Particularly when the abusees are fanatics who may have information that could save innocent lives.

Congress Protects Alleged Terrorists Against CIA

It's so obvious: In time of war, it's important to know who is on which side.

Particularly if you're one of the people running the war.

The CIA has been investigating the Inspector General (IG), who has been investigating the CIA. The CIA says that the IG takes up too much of their time. The spy agency also says that the IG, in one case, started out with the assumption that detainees at Guantanamo were being mistreated, and then looked for evidence that might support that assumption.

Acting with a swift resolve seldom seen in Washington, Oregon's Senator Wyden sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence, asking the Director to call off the CIA's probe.

The he rounded up reporters. "I just don't want to see the intimidation of inspector generals in Washington, D.C., and I'm of the view that people who know that they're doing the right thing aren't afraid of oversight," the senator told them.

I realize that it's election season, and that politicians have to do this sort of thing. It's a tradition to get passionately involved with high-profile issues.

And, I agree that checks and balances, and some sort of accountability, are important. Just the same, This is another case where I wonder if the people on capitol hill know who's trying to keep them alive, and who's trying to kill them.