The Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee commissioned a federal report to identify prison facilities in the U.S. that are suitable for housing Guantanamo detainees, concluding the option is viable — despite congressional opposition to such a plan when the Obama administration proposed it.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed interest in the proposal first came to light Wednesday after Fox News turned up an internal Government Accountability Office document that refers to “Source of Work: Ms. Dianne Feinstein, Chair, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate” and lists the “Gist of Work” as an investigation into whether domestic facilities could house the approximately 170 detainees remaining at the controversial facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Two hours after Fox News’ inquiry about the report, Feinstein’s office posted the report online and released a statement confirming that the California senator thinks the Obama administration’s controversial plan to relocate detainees to the United States is a viable option.
“This report demonstrates that if the political will exists, we could finally close Guantanamo without imperiling our national security,” Feinstein said. “The GAO report makes clear that numerous prisons exist inside the United States — operated by both the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice—capable of holding the 166 detainees who remain at Guantanamo in an environment that meets the security requirements.”
Why would he be concerned?
A) He and his administration were the ones telling her to lie to the American people after the attacks in Benghazi.
B) The American people indicated that they don’t particularly care about being lied to when they voted him back in.
In response to a question from reporter Major Garrett on whether the Obama administration’s mishandling of Benghazi raises “core questions of basic competency,” press secretary Jay Carney revealed that Barack Obama “is not particularly concerned” about whether Susan Rice misled the American people:
“What the president is worried about, Major, is what happened and why in Benghazi. He is not particularly concerned about whether the ambassador or I went out and talked about the fact that we believed extremists might have been responsible. And whether we named them as al Qaeda or not does not–no, it certainly doesn’t have any bearing on what happened and who was responsible as that investigation was continuing on Benghazi.”
Here’s the video…
Liberal academia? Revisionist history? Nothing to see here, move it along people…
Via CBS Houston:
The most historical instance of protesting against taxation without representation is now being taught in Texas schools as a terrorist act.
As recently as January of this year, the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative included a lesson plan that depicted the Boston Tea Party, an event that helped ignite the American Revolution, as an act of terrorism. TheBlaze reports that in a lesson promoted on the TESCCC site as recently as January, a world history/social studies class plan depicted the Boston Tea Party as being anything but patriotic, causing many people to become upset with the lack of transparency and review for lessons.
“A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nation’s busiest port,” wrote the teachers in charge of organizing the curriculum about the Boston Tea Party. “Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities.
As if you needed another reason to dread a second Obama term, along comes a report that the President’s administration is set to release two convicted terrorists … after the election.
Media outlets in Latin America are reporting that the United States is likely to release two convicted Colombian terrorists, but only after the November 6th Presidential Election.
Colombian newspaper El Espectador (The Spectator) reported on October 19 that the United States and Colombia are in “advanced” talks about releasing Ricardo Palmera and Nayibe Rojas Cabrera to Colombia where they would likely be freed. To our knowledge, no U.S. media outlet has reported on any of this as of yet.
Ricardo Palmera, who is best known by his nomme de guerre “Simón Trinidad” is a high-ranking rebel leader and former finance director of the leftist Colombian insurgent terrorist organization FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forced of Colombia), which is responsible for thousands of kidnappings and murders in Colombia, including businessmen, politicians, women, children, and even a female presidential candidate.
Obama’s flexibility after the election should frighten every one.
Here is an unofficial tally of things that will come to pass after November 6th.
CBS reporter Lara Logan stepped out of the role of journalist, and into the role of American citizen screaming about her government’s lies regarding the enemy her country faces – the Taliban.
From the Chicago Sun-Times:
“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . .” Logan declared in her native South African accent.
The lie is that America’s military might has tamed the Taliban.
“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan said. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,” who claim “they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban,” she added sarcastically. “It’s such nonsense!”
Logan then goes on to rip what she calls “Taliban apologists” in Washington who have tried to falsely portray the enemy as ‘kinder’ and ‘gentler’.
“It’s such nonsense,” she added.
Logan believes the false narrative is an attempt by the administration to get America out of the longest war, but that it only provides a false sense that the perils of the enemy are in the past.
It’s a rather frightening account from somebody in the know.
Logan concludes, “Our enemies are writing the story, and there’s no happy ending for us.”
What could possibly go wrong?
The Long War Journal reports:
The Obama administration has released a list of 55 Guantanamo detainees who were approved for transfer by the Guantanamo Bay Review Task Force. The task force, which was authorized by President Obama as one of his first acts in office, completed its work in January 2010. The Obama administration has worked to resettle many of the detainees the task force approved for transfer, but the detainees on the newly-disclosed list remain at Guantanamo.
Before the task force was authorized in January 2009, Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) had previously assessed all of the detainees held in Cuba. JTF-GTMO’s threat assessments for 760 current and former detainees have been leaked online. (Approximately 167 detainees remain in custody at this time.)
The Long War Journal has matched those threat assessments to the 55 detainees on the task force’s list.
JTF-GTMO determined that 34 of the 55 detainees on the newly-released list were “high risk(s)” who are “likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies” if freed from custody. One detainee was deemed a “medium to high risk.”
JTF-GTMO assessed that 19 of the 55 detainees are “medium risk(s)” who “may pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies.”
Just one of the 55 detainees was assessed to be a “low risk, due to his medical condition.”
It’s not like former Gitmo detainees would ever launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. again … wait, what?
As we reported Thursday:
There are reports tonight that a radical left-wing organization is responsible for helping to free a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay named Abu Sufian bin Qumu. Bin Qumu has been cited by multiple sources at Fox News as at least being involved with, and possibly playing the lead role in the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Those attacks resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American diplomats.
Well … um … Osama’s dead! Yea, that’s our foreign policy…
The same Egyptian protesters that President Obama was more than willing to support during the so-called Arab Spring, mounted an unprecedented attack on an American Embassy in Cairo yesterday.
Angry protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and hauled down its American flags, replacing them with black flags with Islamic emblems.
The incident prompted U.S. security guards to fire off a volley of warning shots as a large crowd gathered outside, apparently upset about the production of a Dutch film thought to insult the Prophet Mohammed, said CNN producer Mohammed Fahmy, who was on the scene.
An embassy operator told CNN that the facility had been cleared of diplomatic personnel earlier Tuesday, ahead of the apparent threat, while Egyptian riot police were called to help secure the embassy walls.
An embassy in Libya was also attacked.
Protesters angry over an amateurish American-made video denouncing Islam attacked the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, killing a State Department officer, while Egyptian demonstrators stormed over the fortified walls of the United States Embassy here.
On the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the assaults were a violent reminder that the changes sweeping the region have hardly dispelled the rage against the United States that still smolders in pockets around the Arab world.
The results? Multiple Americans were shot, while others were the victims of a rocket attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.
The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car, a Libyan official said, as they were rushed from a consular building stormed by militants denouncing a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad.
Gunmen had attacked and burned the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, a center of last year’s uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, late on Tuesday evening, killing one U.S. consular official. The building was evacuated.
The Libyan official said the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was being driven from the consulate building to a safer location when gunmen opened fire.
Believe it or not, the response coming from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo included an apology to the extremists who had carried out the attack.
I’m going to say that again.
The Obama administration apologized to terrorists who had burned down sovereign American buildings and killed an American citizen.
The statement from the Embassy in Cairo actually apologized for “religious incitement” and for “hurting the religious feelings of Muslims”.
I wish I was making that up. Here is the statement:
Have you ever in your life thought, after two U.S. embassies were attacked and seized by radical Islamists, in which multiple Americans were shot – one fatally – and an embassy was nearly burned to the ground, exactly 11 years to the day after the worst terrorist attack in American history perpetrated by similar radical Islamists, that you would ever see an administration actually issue an apology for ‘hurting the religious feelings of Muslims’?
Oh I know they’re trying to walk it back now, but weakness has already been shown. This will go down as the single most cowardly and disgraceful response to an attack on the fundamental American right of free speech in modern history.
Worse, it crossed the bounds of a mere protest when an American was shot and killed. It is a terrorist attack. And we apologized.
President ‘Gutsy Call’ is now officially operating under a foreign policy platform in which we as a nation are subservient to terrorism and slaves to appeasement.
Indeed, the administration is working fervently to backpedal on the apology, 17 hours after the fact. But the damage is done.
The Obama administration is disavowing a statement from its own Cairo embassy that seemed to apologize for anti-Muslim activity in the United States.
“The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government,” an administration official told POLITICO.
The embassy came under widespread criticism for failing to defend free speech in the face of threats of violence. Egyptian protesters rioted anyway, breaching the embassy walls and tearing down the American flag.
The criticism has been warranted. This may go down as one of the most embarrassing days in foreign policy history, and proves that having ‘we killed Osama bin laden’ as your biggest foreign policy platform isn’t enough. Amateur hour in the White House needs to end in November.
Herein lies the root of why it is utterly ridiculous for the United States to recognize religious holy days/months for radical Islamists facing trials for terrorism.
Last week, a U.S. military judge agreed to postpone the trials of five terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks, presumably out of respect for their Muslim holy period of Ramadan.
While our military courts are respecting the holy days celebrated by the terrorists, the terrorists have no intention of respecting that same religious period.
Just into the second day of Ramadan, Iraqi terrorists have killed 25 people.
Bombs in Shiite areas of Iraq claimed the lives of 25 people Sunday, the second day of the Muslim holy month Ramadan. An Iraqi soldier and a policeman also died in separate incidents.
The violence started in the morning, when a car bomb exploded outside a popular restaurant in the central city of Najaf, about 100 miles south of Baghdad, an official with Iraq’s Interior Ministry said. Five people were killed and 14 others were wounded.
Just before sunset, when Muslims break their daily Ramadan fast, three roadside bombs exploded within a few minutes of each other at the crowded al-Tameem market in a predominantly Shiite area in Baghdad’s southern outskirts, police officials in the capital said. Fifteen people were killed and 60 others wounded, police said.
Why are we respecting the religious holiday of people who have no respect for it themselves?
Exactly who the hell is asking these people for their opinion on this anyway?
The Miami Herald is reporting that September 11th mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammad, and four other defendants, would like to postpone their August hearing at Guantanamo because it falls toward the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
The trial judge, Army Col. James Pohl, set the date for the hearing in May and specifically ruled out an extension on grounds that it coincided with Islam’s fasting month. He noted in his order then that no defense lawyer at that point had raised objection to a hearing that coincided with Ramadan.
But the attorneys do just that in a June 21 filing currently under seal on the Pentagon’s war court website entitled “Joint Defense Motion for the Military Commission to Respect the Religious Observances of Enemy Prisoners under Common Article 3.”
Pohl is hearing motions in another Guantánamo case next week. But that hearing ends by July 19, before Ramadan starts. The 9/11 case pre-trial motions would be heard toward the end of Ramadan.
“The last 10 days of Ramadan commemorate the night God —Allah— revealed the Holy Quran to the Prophet Mohammed,” said James Connell III, the Pentagon-paid defense counsel for Mohammed’s nephew, Ammar al Baluchi. “These 10 days are the most holy period of the Muslim calendar and are typically observed by fasting, prayer, and seclusion.”
Pamela Geller writes:
Let me get this straight. We are supposed to postpone the 911 tribunals out of respect and deference to the very ideology that inspired the mass murderous Islamic attacks of 9/11. Someone pinch me. This is a nightmare.
Ramadan is exactly when these jihadist savages should be put on trial and sentenced to death.
I’ll go one step further. Their deaths should be televised live on Pay-Per-View, with the proceeds going to the victims families … it should be televised on the first day of Ramadan, and rerun every day until the end of Ramadan.
This is the stuff of parallel universes…
Former government attorneys and defense experts fear that foreign terrorists could capitalize on a new House proposal that would afford them full protection under the U.S. legal system, potentially spurring a domestic influx of would-be terrorists who may seek to exploit the legal loophole.
The amendment, spearheaded by Reps. Justin Amash (R., Mich.) and Adam Smith (D., Wash), would implement an unprecedented reversal in longstanding U.S. policy by requiring that terrorists be prosecuted in civilian courts—a shift that would also allow them to be housed among general inmates in American prisons.
The amendment would prevent the president from effectively fighting the war on terror, thereby posing a serious threat to the country’s national security, experts warn.
“In order to be able to successfully fight and win this war, we need to support the notion that this is a real war,” said David Rivkin, who provided legal counsel in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. “Anything that delegitimizes the laws of war is a horrible thing symbolically in terms of undermining a fragile consensus.”
Smith and Amash, Rivkin said, are unraveling a delicate legal balance that permits the president to effectively “fight and win” the war on terror.
Winning the war on terror is clearly not a priority any longer. Keeping things PC with our enemies is job number one.
Our representatives in government are severely undermining their own country, and the men and women who fight on Obama’s behalf.