Cuban Country Club

There are numerous privileges we have continued to provide the terrorists housed at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Here is the latest. It shows yet another reason NOT to close the detention center. It is a beacon for world-class custody and containment.

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/07/12110360-soccer-cable-tv-at-gitmo-us-lockup-in-cuba-quietly-being-upgraded?lite

Trading Safety for Favor

It is said that America does not and will not negotiate with terrorists. But, it appears that our current government will negotiate for terrorists to be released without charges.

Recently the Obama Administration has been negotiating the release of a high value detainee, Mohammed Fazl, and four other detainees. All of them happen to be Taliban members. Fazl is a senior commander of the Taliban's army and has led operations that resulted in the death of one CIA member. This detainee has clearly been involved in nefarious Taliban operations that have targeted America. He has also been suspected of killing Shiite Muslims indiscriminately, in violation of human rights regulations.

The Obama Administration is pushing for the transfer of this detainee and four others to Afghanistan in what is being called a "peace deal." If by "peace" one means turning threats back over to the people who can fund, re-equip, and protect these dangerous men, I don't understand the definition of peace. Let's re-cap: US and Allied Forces capture these five men to decrease the likelihood that they will interfere with or actually oppose our operations to stop terrorism. One of these detainees has been so integral to perpetuating terrorism, that we hold him at GTMO beside KSM, the master-mind behind 9/11, and a handful or so of other high-value detainees. Then when our relationship with Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, and his government begins to unravel, we decide to try winning their favor by giving Fazl and a few other detainees back to Afghanistan. Not only does that sacrifice our safety for the sake of regaining Karzai's good graces, but it endangers us by reintroducing the threats that we mitigated in 2002 when we captured this man. So by "peace" we really mean "shooting ourselves in the foot."

Does anyone really believe that Afghan authorities will hold these terrorists as safely in their custody as we would? Does our government really believe that our national security should rest in the hands of our shaky relationship with Afghanistan? Or is it that the current leadership in our country cares more about repairing a relationship with Afghanistan, than it does about keeping America safe?

Can Afghanistan be trusted to neutralize the threat these terrorists pose? Hardly. That country is too unstable and splintered.

And lastly, will this really bring about peace? -- not if those we release from GTMO rejoin the fight, as many have.

Why not trust one of our allies with the care and custody of this high value detainee? Ohhh, that's right - no other Westernized or allied nation is convinced that they can effectively contain the danger posed by men like this. So, America will roll over - trading our national security for an uncertain relationship with Hamid Karzai. Note that this is a man who most certainly knew the whereabouts of UBL despite claiming to be our ally for the last several years.

Releasing men like Fazl from GTMO, especially for the purpose of repairing a relationship with Afghanistan is nonsense. There are plenty of other diplomatic avenues that do not jeopardize America's safety. We must stop handing ourselves back into the hands of our enemies, who we appear to provide more regard to than the soldiers who endanger themselves to protect us.

We cannot entrust our own safety to our enemies and luke-warm allies.

Ignorance Endangers America

Recently a reality t.v. show hit the networks. It's called All American Muslim and it's on TLC. It follows several families in Dearborn, Michigan where there is the largest Muslim population outside of the Middle East. The home improvement store, Lowe's, had been running advertisements during the show and recently pulled all of their commercials due to receiving complaints from an organization called the Florida Family Association. The Florida Family Association charged that the t.v. show consisted of "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."

THIS IS INCONCEIVABLY IGNORANT.

...and false.

The organization went on to complain that the program misrepresented Islam -a religion that really supported mercy killing, the mutilation of women, and other such evils. Again, this is a ridiculous assertion. The Florida Family Association was referring to Sharia Law, whereby the followers inflict a shallow cut on their forehead to draw blood in a symbolic gesture that is related to their faith. The Florida Family Association's assertions are as misguided as the contention that Judeo-Christian religions engage in genital mutilation of infant boys throught the process of circumcision.

Assuming we can close our ears to the judgmental nature of the organization's comments (which is offensive enough), how can this group in Florida paint Islam as having an agenda that in any way endanger's America? This is absurd. Having an Islamic community in America is no more dangerous than having a German community in Israel.

It is a tragedy that there is so much misinformation regarding Islam since 9/11. This type of misguided angst, ignorant pontificating, prejudice, and paranoia is more likely to endanger "America's liberty and traditional values" than Muslims living in America.

C'mon, people, get a grip on the REAL facts about Islam, America, and what's been happening since 9/11. Organizations like the Florida Family Association are not only hurting American credibility, but they are endangering America by confirming the beliefs of the Radical Islamic Terrorists, who believe America is out to abolish Islam.

Let's try not to prove them right, America. And let's try avoiding a downward spiral into their distorted reality whereby statements like those by the Florida Family Association, which confirms to these terrorists that we really want to kill Muslims.

All Apologies

I am not referrign to the song by the band Nirvana. Rather, I have been extremely busy with...err, uhhh, life to be honest. Imagine that - life getting in the way of blogging and publishing! More to come very soon, I am in the final stretches of editing.

--at least until my editor tells me there is more work to be done!

-E.M.

Former GTMO Detainee Speaks

Recently a Tunisian man, and former detainee of Guantanamo Bay detention facility was interviewed about his opinion of Bin Laden's death. Why the press was interested in the opinion of a convicted and freed terrorist remains a mystery. Did the press actually think a terrorist would speak negatively about his deceased leader? Well, his name is Adel Ben Mabrouk and though he spoke highly of Bin Laden. He also mentioned positive things at GTMO. He remarked that there were alot of good people working there. It's unfortunate that even these sentiments are overshadowed by rumors of rampant abuse and injustice - neither of which have any evidence since 2004. Yet the last 8 years of publicity refer to a pattern of negative detainee treatment without any recent evidence of such. The misinformation persists...

Merit

With the recent killing of Al Qaeda's #1, Osama bin Laden, America revels in a symbolic victory. Americans and perhaps other civilized nations relish the prospect of taking down additional members such as Al Qaeda's second, now perhaps first in command, Al Zawahiri. Though a symbolic victory, this capture turned kill clearly sends a message to the despicable terrorists, who remain on our radar regardless of the time required to track them down. Not surprisingly, Guantanamo Bay detainees generated some of the intelligence information that ultimately led to bin Laden's death. Most notably, it is doubtful that harsh interrogation techniques last seen prior to 2003 were even considered. They were unnecessary. What was instrumental, however, was the continued legal, ethical, and safe operation of the detention center and execution of intelligence missions at Guantanamo Bay. The entire operation exudes more integrity than most would imagine. Too many years have passed without elucidating the true story of what transpires at GTMO. Too few world citizens have appreciated the existence of GTMO and have valued those Americans who serve there. Osama bin Laden's death is one major step in helping to convince the public about the merit of keeping GTMO open.

Military Commissions Trials Resume

I have been remiss in posting - my sincere apologies. This recent news warrants attention.

President Obama signed an executive order yesterday to resume military trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is excellent news! Not only is there now support for resolution of these terrorists' disposition, but America will take a sensible course of action by putting them to trial. Thank God Congress has continued to oppose efforts to house the Guantanamo detainees within the US.

Here is a quick thought: There will be 80 or so tried of the 170 or so left at GTMO.

At it's height in 2003, GTMO had over 800 detainees. Most of these detainees have been sent home to their countries, or have been received by other countries. There is a reason why there are 170ish detainees left at GTMO. These are not people any country is willing to take. It's not because other countries don't have the money or the time. It's for some other reason...maybe because these remaining detainees truly are the worst of the worst. They are undoubtedly terrorists who pose immense risk to the national security of any nation. 170 minus the 80 who will go to trial leaves about 90 to be housed forever, probably in Guantanamo. Our country will dump billions into housing these 90 terrorists for the duration of their lives. I am more than happy to pay taxes for the next 40 years that support their continued detention if they will never be put to trial. And I would be pleased to pay the same taxes if it supported their trials.

Our American dollars are well worth what they purchase in national security assurance.

Habeas Corpus is Contingent on Geography

President Obama apparently called the obstruction of habeas rights for detainees at Bagram Air Base (Afghanistan) a victory. Is this confusing to anyone else considering the harsh criticism he verbalized against the former President Bush? It is shocking that in 2008 a leader chides the US and condemns its then leader for withholding rights from detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). Yet in less than two years the same critic cheers for withholding of the same rights to detainees held at Bagram Air Base.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-bagram-20100522,0,787686.story

This lends more support to the pattern of politics and misinformation clouding the world's view of what is really occurring with the detainees in the current war. FACT: The detainees at GTMO wisely and widely spread false rumors of rampant abuse in the detention center. The world reacted by claiming that they deserved habeas rights. FACT: The detainees at Bagram have not done so and it appears palatable enough to the world that so far, the same country's court that ruled GTMo detainees worthy of habeas corpus, just ruled Bagam detainees to be unworthy.

The decoy technicality that one base sits on American soil leased from the Cuban government, while the other sits on land borrowed from a Middle Eastern country is absurdly bogus. It fails to explain why one group of detainees deserves the right to challenge the terms of its imprisonment, while the other does not. Either a person is entitled to this right because he/is human, or he/she is not entitled to it. The land the individual stands on is irrelevant.

The sad part is that the detainees in Afghanistan are arguably more likely to be innocent than those at GTMO, as the latter detention facility has been said by the Bush Administration to hold the more threatening, instrumental, and/or valuable detainees.

The smoke and mirrors continue, whereby Guantanamo is lambasted and rendered by the world to be an evil place rife with abundant abuse, while the other detention centers seem held to a different standard.

One must wonder if the reason for the discrepant yardsticks relates to the effectiveness of the Manchester Document-driven behavior exhibited by the GTMO detainees - information operations they have executed by recruiting blind lawyers and advocacy groups; and by playing on the heartstrings of world citizens who are ignorant to these detainees' simple ruse.

It continues to be a shame that the world fights for terrorists' human rights only if those detainees reside in certain geographic regions.

When Will the World Understand What GTMO is Really Like?

Satellite televisions are playing in the cell blocks 24/7 for detainees at Guantanamo Bay to watch. It is astonishing that the worst news to come out of GTMO in the last year is that the detainees have broken into factions of tv and non-tv watchers.

When one considers how well these men are treated, it is pathetic that the rumors of alleged torture continue to characterize people's image of the place. It couldn't be farther from the truth. It is as if no matter how many stories the media releases about detainees having unbelieveable accomodations and privileges (despite the fact that they were captured while engaged in terrorist actions), people will never believe that GTMO is not nearly as terrible as the rumors say.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63R02I20100428?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Is the US Unintentionally Financing Terrorism?

The cost of the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay that house the remaining detainees were approved by Congress under the Bush Administration in 2003-2004. The total cost of building Camps 5 and 6 were $68 million, plus $4.4 million for the technology to operate the security system. Camp 5 is modeled after a maximum security facility in Terre Haute, Indiana. Camp 6 is also state-of-the art and reminiscient of federal facilities in the US. These were 2 of the most expensive detention construction projects between 2003 and 2004 that were completed in order to replace the inadequate Camp X-Ray facilities.

Within the last few weeks the Obama Administration proposed to spend $127 million to prepare the detention facility in Illinois for the transfer of detainees from GTMO.

How sad that we are spending twice the amount of money on the facilities in Illinois, than we did to build similar facilities in GTMO back in 2003-2004. It is also mind-boggling that we are spending money on housing the same group of people twice.

It's not that "doing the right thing" as the Obama Administration might argue, costs us alot of money. Rather, it's pathetic that that spending money to support terrorists takes priority over spending that large sum of money on Americans.

If there are at least 50 who are "too dangerous to release," but they can't be tried because it would compromise the national security and intelligence faculties of the US, it's more than fair to assert that these guys are terrorists...even if you haven't read the intelligence reports on them.

Ultra-skeptics of the Obama Administration might say that spending $137 million on a new detainee facility in Illinois is akin to our Commander-in-Chief financing terrorism. He aims to provide them a comfortable environment with numerous inappropriately loose liberties. Of course these rights and privileges enable them to conduct further terrorist communication and activity inside and outside the Illinois detention.

Some would say this series of decisions essentially helps create a government-funded, functional terrorist cell within the US borders.

Unbelievable.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/01/us.budget.guantanamo/index.html

Radio Interview

I will be interviewed on the Burnie Thompson Show (101.1 FM -- Northwest Florida) around 7:30-8:00 CST (8:30-9:00 EST). Tune in to listen to a discussion about the Guantanamo Detainees and how the U.S. government is balancing their rights with American safety and national security.

Listen to it LIVE here: http://www.talkradio101.com/index.shtml

Yemen and Guantanamo Detainees

President Obama announced today that due to instability in Yemen, the US government has halted all detainees scheduled to transfer from the detention facility in Guantanmo Bay, Cuba to Yemen. This follows the most recent terrorist attack on America (thankfully) being foiled by the passengers of the Detroit-bound flight. The terrorist had been released from Guantanamo in 2007.

Let's review the facts one time for clarity:

The Yemense detainees at Guantanamo Bay were captured on the battlefield by the Bush Administration due to the threat they posed to the US and its Allies.

The detainees have been sent back to Yemen for the last several years (prior to President Obama taknig office) because many politicians believed the men were "innocent."

BUT, they will not be sent back now because there is too much of an Al Qaeda presence in Yemen and the country is too unstable right now.

Here are a few questions I'd be grateful for someone in The Administration to explain to America:
A) If the detainees were captured on the battlefield, how are they innocent?
B) If the detainees are highly likely to be converted to terrorists if sent to Yemen, why are we releasing them at all?
C) If the alternative is to transfer them to the prison in Illinois (the one that is slated to receive them), why are we bringing terrorist within our borders to be imprisoned? Also, if they are innocent why must they be imprisoned?
D) How is imprisoning them in the US different from keeping them in a detention facility in Guantanamo Bay? They're behind bars either way, right?
E) Won't brining them into our country better enable them to orchstrate further terrorist attacks on our country?
F) If The Adminstration plans to mitigate their threat by keeping the detainees heavily guarded and controlled, how is this different from their detainment at Guantnamo Bay?

I wish there were clearer answers out there. Such explanations will be needed when (God forbid) the current political decisions enable a successful terrorist attack on the US.

The US Continues to Fight with Itself

The US continues to lose the fight it has started with itself. Let me re-cap in order to explain...

The Bush Administration responds to a terrorist attack on US soil by declaring war on all terrorists. Yes, this is an unrealistic goal for a war. It is both obtuse and immeasurable. But the idea is a very important one for any world citizen who values his or her own right to live.

Then Bush capitalizes on an opportunity to gain intelligence about terrorists by capturing (rather than killing) terrorists on the battlefield. He holds them rightfully in accordance with the international guidance (Geneva Conventions), even though this document does not address how to treat terrorists, if a country is "at war" with them. Of course, this is because we have never declared war on a force that is an illegal one ("illegal" according to LOAC -- the Law of Armed Conflict, which governs wars across the world).

Since 2002, the Bush Administration (I believe led by Donald Rumsfeld's poor judgment) approved a series of harsh interrogation strategies that although are clearly unethical and abusive, have only been used on THREE occasions at GTMO. The rest of the policies and procedures to operate GTMO detention and intelligence missions abide by all US and international law starting in 2002 when it opened. Although it is true that laws were re-written and re-interpreted between 2002 and 2008. But as the law evolved, the American government adhered to the various changes with revised policies.

Shortly after GTMO opened in 2002 the complaints and accusations arose worldwide and country-wide. People actually began believing that America was literally torturing these detainees daily and holding them day-after-hellish day completely against the law. The GTMO pictures released on tv and the internet AND the actual abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib didn't help. However, these masses of people having never worked at or visited GTMO believed and called these men innocent publically, without any full understanding of the legalities involved. They were also unaware that the terrible conditions we saw in pictures of GTMO, were actually temporary holding facilities while American tax dollars funded state-of-the-art facilities that were completed about 1 year later. Oh, and the orange jumpsuits -- big deal, they have to be some color, don't they? They were no different than American prison garments.

Sadly, the people believing everything negative that they saw and heard about GTMO were also unaware of the FACT that the rumors of abusive and lawless American policies were actually generated by Al Qaeda itself.

Yes, this is the sad and less-known truth -- The Manchester Document is the Al Qaeda terrorist training manual. When British Intelligence found it in Manchester in 2001, those privy to the classified document at the time learned that part of Al Qaeda's intricate plan was to frame America. The manual states in clear language that aside from using bombs and other means to terrorize Western nations, that Al Qaeda members were required to claim abuse at the hands of their captor and find ways to turn the nation's people against themselves. This sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It is painful to admit this, but Al Qaeda has succeeded in this endeavor. They have orchestrated a series of rumors and an image of the detainees: that America has continuously tortured innocent men. This Al Qaeda "information operation" (rumor) has successfully led to a split among Americans. We are fighting ourselves in regards to the idea of closing GTMO. Now in 2009, Americans and citizens of the world are being fooled by the very terrorists they sought to outlaw!

Here's a story that exemplifies how the entire movement to close GTMO has unfolded, and how every effort to close GTMO is a HUGE mistake:

American and Allied intelligence forces locate a man named Said al-Shihri, who their sources have tied to the September 11 attacks. Presumably, this is the intelligence information that led to his capture and detainment: he supported the extremist refugees associated with 9/11 attacks, he received weapons training at a camp north of Kabul and was hospitalized in Pakistan for a month and a half after he was wounded by an Allied Forces airstrike. He met with extremists in Iran and helped them get into Afghanistan, although he later claimed that he went to Iran to buy carpets for his store.

The US captures him and locks him up at GTMO.

Those politicians, attorneys, and human rights activists (who have not read the intelligence information that led to his capture because it was not released by the Pentagon until President Obama entered office) believe the detainee's bogus story (released to the world through the detainee's attorney). They claim that this man is innocent and was captured while travelling to Iran to buy carpets for his family's store.

The American government can't release the intelligence information disputing this because it's classified. Furthermore, if we release our sources or intelligence circuits, we would only increase all enemies' knowledge of how we conduct intelligence operations -- a big "no-no" for a country's chances of survivial, especially during war.

Note that none of the politicians, attorneys, or human rights activists have read the Manchester Document, mentioned earlier. They are therefore, not aware that falsely accusing your captor of abuse and claiming innocence are what Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to do very effectively. They have no idea that his detainee is just "following orders."

They believe the story he told his attorney to release to the world and went on to say on this detainee's behalf that if he was released, he wanted to see a daughter born while at Guantanamo and try to work at the family store in Riyadh, when released.

The American public and many politicians are so bothered by the idea that this man was supposedly abused and is innocent, that they fight against GTMO and its operations, while believing every similar rumor they hear about torture, abuse, and unlawful detention of detainees. Every rumor they hear (even though they don't realize these are rumors started by Al Qaeda) confirms that GTMO must be as horrible has they hear it is.

The American public and numerous special interest groups in America (including those funded by Al Qaeda itself) lobby the American government for GTMO's closure and the release of all detainees. President Obama takes office and essentially confirms the rumors of American maltreatment and lawlessness by signing that it must be closed so we can "return to our core values." Unfortunately, we never left our values. They were false accusations that Al Qaeda spread, and we believed every one of them -- as did our President.

So here we are in 2010 trying to release all of the GTMO detainees and President Obama discontinues and tries to control the Military Commissions process (military court hearings for the detainees) so that we can meet his deadline to close GTMO, but the truth has escaped us.

Remember that guy we captured? Said Ali al-Shihri? Yeah, well it turns out he was lying after all. After being released from GTMO in 2007 under the Bush administration, he has become the deputy leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, a group that has claimed responsibility for the Christmas Day attempted bomb attack on a Detroit-bound airliner. Clearly he didn't really want to return to Iran to work in the family furniture store. But, he went ahead and completed a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia (conditions of his release from GTMO) and then fled to Yemen where he is now leading Al Qaeda. It turns out American intelligence was correct that he was a terrorist and all that gobbledy-gook about being innocent was just a sham.

The list of similar cases like this goes on-and-on. Americans have fallen for it. We are fighting ourselves after believing false and negative rumors about how we treat people at GTMO.

If only we had more faith in our country and had read information like the Manchester Document (which is now declassified and available through Google), we could have saved those people on that Detroit-bound Christmas Day flight. It is a fact that about 11% of those who complete the Saudi rehabilitation program re-enter the war on terrorism.

How many more Christmas Day terrorist attacks will it take for us to stop releasing terrorists under the misunderstanding that we have done something wrong by capturing them in the first place?

America must stop fighting itself. We are leading to our own destruction.

Here the AP story this is based upon: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091231/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_al_qaida;_ylt=Au1_HOQND4Ouw2ZFdHNgYO6s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNtM3IyNjY3BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMjMxL2NiX2d1YW50YW5hbW9fYWxfcWFpZGEEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM1BHB0A2hvbWVfY29rZQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmb3JtZXJnaXRtb2Q-

--Written by a former military officer who served at GTMO

Innocent Does Not Mean Innocent If You Are An Acquitted Terrorist

When the Senate Judiciary Committee recently asked our Attorney General what would happen if Kahled Sheikh Mohammad -- the 9/11 orchestrator, was acquitted of charges in the upcoming New York trial, he had some interesting comments:



Per MSNBC:

Seeking to allay acquittal concerns, Holder insisted the suspects will be convicted, but even if one isn't, "that doesn't mean that person would be released into our country."



So let me get this straight...we are willing to move about 200 of these detained terrorists to a prison in Illinois permanently or at least while they await trial, but if one of the most disgusting ones (Kahled Sheikh Mohammad) is found innocent, he'll be kicked out of our country after we gave him a red carpet in the American civil court system?



This makes no sense. I thought if people were innocent, they should go free? Why would we hesitate to treat him with anything but graciousness if he were found innnocent? Afterall, that is why we have been told the military tribunals would not be used for trying the Guantanamo terrorist detainees -- because it was unfair. If someone is found innocent, isn't that person "free" to live wherever his peaceful heart desires? ...apparently not, Mr. Holder, if it means you would have to sacrifice your political aims in favor of honesty and logic. Shameful...

Does Obama Know That We Are Actually Paying Attention?

In June 2007 according to the Washington Post Obama stated: "While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."
Habeas corpus is a tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.

Wait...is anyone else confused? Giving them rights they are not entitled to per the international (and most appropriate set of) laws is somehow consistent with Mr. Obama's comments below?
Obama said. "Al-Qaida terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of war – must be prevented from attacking us again."
...so they are prisoners of war, but they are being tried in civil courts -- not military ones? Oh, and giving them habeas corpus will prevent them from attacking us again. I'm not sure I agree.

Recall Mr. Obama's committment to providing habeas corpus to the detainees. Yet in an interview with NBC News in November 2009 , Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

This sounds like a mixed message to me. We're closing GTMO to ensure that people aren't unlawfully imprisoned, but we're going to give the death penalty to them? ...and all of this was stated prior to any trial being carried out? Does Mr. Obama support terrorists by stack the odds in their favor with civil trials when it will help him get elected into office and then support condemning them to death before their trial when it helps him deflect political criticism that may jeopardize his re-election?

This doesn't sound like the kind of behavior that reflects the "moral high ground" that CNN quoted Obama to have been seeking in January 2009 when he signed the order to close GTMO.

Another ridiculously transparent and unconvincing contradiction:

When signing his executive order to close GTMO Obama stated:
Guantanamo... (is) "a mess, a misguided experiment"
"There is also no question that Guantánamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world," he said.

Then he later stated about Veteran's Benefits:
"When our young men and women have served this country, I don't care if you were for the war or against the war, but they have served our country. They have done every single thing that we have asked of them, with bravery and valor, they should not have to beg when they come home to get the services they need," Obama said.

So Mr. Obama, do you support the troops or not? You've painted them out to be a disgrace in how they ran the operations at GTMO, but then defended them in terms of their benefits.

Does Mr. Obama know we are actually paying attention to his politically motivated, disingenuous rhetoric? Does he realize that those service members who "set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency" are also the same ones who served AT GUANTANAMO with "bravery and valor"?

Our Attorney General Must Think We Are Stupid

Attorney General Eric Holder's statements today: "We need not cower in the face of this enemy," he said. "Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm and our people are ready."

Holder's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today directly addressed critics of his decision, some of whom suggest that the move signals a return to a pre-9/11 mind-set that considered terror suspects more like criminals than enemy combatants.

The contradictions are dizzying. I thought the reason they wanted to try them in the US was because it was much more fair than the military tribunals. -?- So how is that reasoning consistent with Mr. Holder's statement above?

I hate to hold you to your own words, Mr. Holder, but if they are terrorists being tried for war-related crimes, then why are civil laws and processes (i.e., a trial in the jurisdiction of a NY Court) being used to try detainees such as Kahled Sheikh Mohammad?

GTMO Rumors Dispelled

Comedian Stephen Crowder speaks the words that our troops at GTMO are forbidden to speak. Having served at GTMO myself, Mr. Crowder is completely accurate in his description of the place and comparison to American prisons. You must see this video clip!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrzcBMbVXs&feature=player_embedded

Terrorists Get Swine Flu Shot

The terrorists at Guantanamo Bay absolutely receive humane care and custody that far exceeds what other countries would do, and what is specified in the Geneva Conventions.

In fact, they will be receiving the swine flu shot that many Americans will not receive if they are not in the "high risk" category as categorized by the US Center for Disease Control.

I hope my fellow Americans are able to obtain swine influenza (H1N1) vaccinations since the terrorists are being provided this medical treatment on behalf of American taxpayers.

It is undisputable that those being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are being treated well. There is absolutely no reason - other than for public relations, to close the detention center.

See this link for more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/01/AR2009110102171.html

Recording of Dr. Miner's Most Recent Interview

Hear recordings of The Burnie Thompson Show from 9/11 here:
http://www.talkradio101.com/podcasts.shtml

Dr. Miner's interview begins at about the 20th minute in the segment named:
AM-Fri-09-11-hour__02 (Running time: 60:00 - 10.3MB)

See Inside GTMO's Detention Center

Here is an interesting excerpt from a recent National Geographic Documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Enec6lnKEc