As Mr. Obama appears to be moving away from his promise to close Guantanamo Bay, evidence regarding one potential aspect of his hesitation is emerging. However, to many Americans that have intellectually and factually explored the controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay, his decision is not perceived as a revelation. Rather it is a forgone, logical conclusion reached by central decision makers, including President Bush, a long time ago. To further support the well grounded basis for these policies, the Pentagon released the following information today;
“The Pentagon said on Tuesday that 61 former detainees from its military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appear to have returned to terrorism since their release from custody.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as “returning to the fight” and 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by the Defense Intelligence Agency.”
Both Mr. Obama’s decision and the threat assessment data are a stinging rebuke to forces that promoted various fallacious GITMO canards throughout the election. This not only includes far left liberal groups and despicable Democrats but also inauspicious Republicans such as John McCain. Since the opening of Guantanamo Bay, they have built a collective argumentative construct which presupposes the use of torture and so-called deprivation of rights as a basis for their very dangerous actions. Their successes read like a list of perilous misadventures and constitutional abrogation’s; extension of US Constitutional habeas rights to non US citizens, Geneva Convention- Article 3 rights to terrorist enemy non-combatants, rewriting the definition of torture and innumerable baseless claims about alleged mistreatment. These actions have further entangled our country in a dangerous web woven by those whose only motive is to kill any disagreeing with their diabolical theology.
Yet even in the face of evidence these actions have dangerous consequences, the voices of ignominy continue;
“Rights advocates said the lack of details should call the Pentagon’s assertions into question.
“Until enough information is provided to allow the press and the public to verify these claims, they need to be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism,” said Jennifer Daskal, a Washington-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch.”
It will be with both great perturbation and bated breath we watch the actions of a new administration. Will they continue to pave the treacherous road which further endangers our safety and that of our armed forces? Will their new discoveries and exposure to lessons learned vindicate actions taken in the past eight years? Or will inexperience, old alliances and misguided proclivities intervene to once again propel us towards viperous forces and ghastly events? One can only hope this time common sense prevails over political vituperation.