Am I missing something about the attempted attack allegedly by Abdulmutallab on a Detroit flight with relation to the issue of Gitmo? I have read and re-read news reports to try to understand why there is suddenly a massive do-not-close-Gitmo meme spreading in response to the botched attack and I see nothing about Abdulmutallab being a prisoner at Gitmo. So what gives? Let me just illustrate how much this meme has taken hold:
“I’d expect Yemen’s handling of returned Guantanamo detainees to come under intense U.S. scrutiny,” said Matthew Waxman, a Columbia law professor who was an assistant Defense secretary for detainee affairs under President George W. Bush. “In the past, the Yemeni government has not shown great capacity or reliability, but the U.S. hopes to build a stronger partnership and improve that record, in part because it has few other options in this important region.”
Apparently someone is asking this question. But why? The argument being made in Politico is that because 1). there are Yemeni Gitmo detainees being sent back to Yemen and because 2). Abdulmutallab is alleged to have gotten his custom made explosive underpants in Yemen, then 3). this causes concern about the closing of Gitmo. Huh? The article continues by citing Rep Peter Hoekstra (R-MI):
"Hoekstra said the Pentagon has prepared a new report on recidivism among Guantanamo detainees and is keeping the report classified despite repeated Congressional requests to make it public."
This is an interesting point and one that should be discussed, but one that has nothing to do with the failed bombing attempt. The issue with recidivism should be a moral question and then a legal question. Let me put it in these terms: If you were kidnapped, held for years without charge, tortured, and then finally let go as though nothing happened, you too might have some bad feelings toward America. The reality is that any sane person would have negative feelings towards a nation from which such a horror-show policy emerged. The way to handle this issue is to first understand what we have done and then to allow for legal and financial restitution to be made to the victims who were held, never charged, and then released.
By defending the torture policy, by ignoring the victims, by burying our heads in the sand, we are pushing released detainees on a path of revenge. But that issue is neither here nor there because Abdulmutallab was never detained by us in Gitmo or at any other black site - at least no such reports have surfaced.
I am of course speaking of detainees who were never charged with any crime and then released.
Yet the debate relating to Gitmo and the talking points tying this issue to a failed bombing attempt is apparently spreading on the right. Why?
Here are more such discussions:
"But it took the attempted Christmas day bombing to drive home the point so that even Democrats can see it. Thus, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson is now saying that "at a minimum. . .whatever we were about to do we at least have to scrub it again from top to bottom." To that end, Thompson intends to hold hearings on the Christmas day bombing attempt next month."
Um, no. I cannot see the point. I can see the political game here, but not the actual point. Consider that Abdulmutallab studied in London, boarded in Nigeria, and came from an upper-middle class family. Since all Yemeni individuals are no suspect by virtue of the bomb-underwear, should the city of London not take some responsibility too? How about Nigeria? Abdulmutallab is not the first terrorist to study and live in London.
In fact, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh - the man who kidnapped and murdered Danny Pearl - was British born and educated.
"The Obama administration's plan to close Gitmo hinges on sending some 100 Yemeni terrorists back to their country of origin where they will be "rehabilitated," but opponents of the Gitmo closure have repeatedly pointed out that there couldn't be a worse place to send these detainees than Yemen."
If these men are convicted terrorists, then we can move them to a secure prison in the States where we keep other terrorists. If we held them without charge and are simply letting them go, then the only issue is how to compensate these individuals for the crimes we have committed against them, not how to continue to commit crimes against them to cover up our earlier crimes.
The issue of closing Gitmo does not apply to the failed bombing attack in Detroit. The guilty go to prison. The innocent go home. How difficult is this to understand? Regardless, how is where Abdulmutallab allegedly got his underpants from even part of the Gitmo discussion?
I always find it remarkable how quickly politics, ignorance, and fear take over all other responses to a tragedy or near-tragedy. We have barely had time to get information about what happened, but the articles are written, the blog posts are composed, and politicians stand ready with all sorts of promises. Reason no longer dictates our national discourse, only fear.
