It Can’t Gitmo Absurd.

Amnesty International started the ball rolling with their “Gulag” remark. Then came Senator Joe Biden and others calling for the closure of the hellhole that is Gitmo [It’s odd that most Gitmo detainees come out—pound-for-pound—heavier than when they went in] AI was quick to jump on the bandwagon calling for closure with a clever little shibboleth suitable for a bumper sticker on your Volvo: “U.S.A. Close and Disclose”.
AI demands that The US President should:
”Close the prison in Guantánamo Bay and charge the detainees under US law in US courts or release them
Order full disclosure of US policies and practices on detention and interrogation of prisoners and support a independent investigation into abuses.”
They also “[continue] to call on the US administration to:
end all secret and incommunicado detentions;
grant the International Committee of the Red Cross full access to all detainees including those held in secret locations;
ensure recourse to the law for all detainees;
establish a full independent commission of inquiry into all allegations of torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detentions and “disappearances”;
bring to justice anyone responsible for authorizing or committing human rights violations”

You want fries with that?

I really wanted to read some of the Report 2005 that’s causing such a fuss, but it costs £25.00, and I’m not that curious [maybe they should think about putting their prices in dollars since we pay for most of their ventures]. So I decided to see what the AI site was all about for free. If this organization was ever unbiased it has lost any semblance of that characteristic. Under the heading ‘Terror’, ‘counter-terror’ and the rule of law we get a re-hash of Abu Ghraib and every possible one sided portrayal of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing we did there—the removal of a tyrannical despot who enjoyed breakfasts to the sound of prisoners shoved feet first into plastic shredders or watching one of his sons rape a woman while her husband is forced to watch—is of any positive consequence.
Indeed, according to AI, by our example we are responsible for an escalation of oppression, abuse, and violations of human rights everywhere in this world:

“Such serious abuses carried out by a country as powerful as the USA created a dangerous climate. The US administration’s unilateralism and selectivity sent a permissive signal to abusive governments around the world. There is strong evidence that the global security agenda pursued since 11 September 2001, the US-led “war on terror”, and the USA’s selective disregard for international law encouraged and fuelled abuses by governments and others in all regions of the world.

In many countries, new doctrines of security continued to stretch the concept of “war” into areas formerly considered law enforcement, promoting the notion that human rights can be curtailed when it comes to the detention, interrogation and prosecution of “terrorist” suspects.”

Notice the not-so-subtle use of quotes. The site puts these quotes around every word like “war on terror”, “counter-terrorist”, “terrorists”, “war” ad nauseam. They could have just as easily prefaced the words with “so called” every time, but I guess they thought that that would have been too obvious.

A little advice for the folks at AI: Read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago” and then talk about Gulags and torture.

We are NOT going to shut Gitmo down; it would be insane to do so. Where would we put the detainees? And then, wouldn’t the new location become the next Gitmo or Abu Ghraib thus adding to the laundry list of “abuse” perpetrated by our military? Perhaps that’s what they want. Senator Biden says we should keep the ones we know are a threat, and let the rest go. He also thinks our enemies will like us better, or hate us less for it. That is so exceptionally naïve for the exact same reason: anywhere we put the known terrorists would then become the next target of assault from the press and the so called “human rights organizations” [hey, if they can do it so can I], and further, the ones we let go—and we have already let quite a few go—would then go back to do what they do best. It would also be an admission of guilt, and be seen as a sign of weakness and capitulation thereby energizing our enemies; quite the opposite of the intended objective.

This is just another attempt by the left, that now has AI as a collaborator, in the quest to minimize the threat of terror and to further the anti-America agenda. I say give them one, just one allowance: let the Red Cross in, but let it be known that some detainees may actually lie as that is their agenda, and that their reports must reflect that assumption.