Stopping Terrorism and Closing Gitmo

January 7, 2010

- See all 31 of my articles

Ignorant. Stupid. Naive. Reckless.

These are just a few words I think of when I consider Barack Obama’s decision to continue with the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It’s been said by many Homeland Security and terrorism officials that Yemen is the new Afghanistan. This means that the new terrorism training location and the safe haven that terrorists (Al-Qaeda) are currently residing in is Yemen. The attempted airline attack on Christmas Day by Abdul Mudallad has ties to both Al-Qaeda and Yemen.

Let’s consider Guantanamo Bay for a moment. There were roughly 100 Yemini detainees at Gitmo. I remind you that Gitmo has been reserved for prisoners that are the “most dangerous of the dangerous”. We have already released roughly 20 of these prisoners to YEMEN. There are around 10-15 that are expected to go to trial (in the US) which leaves about 70 prisoners that could very well be released back to Yemen.

I’m a layman regarding this subject. However, this layman would like to apply some common sense to this subject. How stupid is it to release potentially 100 prisoners back to the hot spot for terrorist training? Why would we ever dream of strengthening the enemy by sending reinforcements to them? Meanwhile, the other countries of the world are pointing and laughing at us because we act weak. We focus on getting H1N1 shots to the Gitmo detainees while our own citizens do without. In countries like Switzerland they are making stand against Islam by banning any new Minarets in their country. Why are we (in the United States) so focused on being politically correct that we help Islam grow while other countries try to stifle that same epidemic growth?

What about keeping us safe while we are flying? How many of the terrorists in Gitmo and in the terrorist attacks fit a certain profile? [Pause for reflection] When are we going to wake up and use the intelligence and knowledge that we have? If we know that people traveling from specific countries or that have lived in specific countries have a higher potential to be terrorists why not use that information? If we know that Muslim males between the ages of 15-40 are more likely to carry out Jihad on us, why not use that information? Yes, I’m talking about profiling. No holds barred profiling.

Is it so bad to profile that liberals would rather see hundreds of lives lost instead of inconveniencing a few Muslims to extra searches? Have we become a country that is so politically correct that we’re willing to put aside all common sense so that we don’t offend someone?

Conservatives speak up. Liberals wake up. The time has come for all of us to get back to the way we thought on 9/12. Remember the Towers falling and people jumping. We need to do all we can to keep our citizens safe. The failed Christmas Day bombing by Abdul Mudallad was one of luck—–luck that Abdul either cracked under pressure unable to make his bomb work or luck that the bomb maker did a poor job to start with. Either way, I believe that we have been spared massive loss of life purely by the Grace of God.

I hope that 12/25 was a wakeup call for the USA.
I hope that the closing of Gitmo will be stopped or at least paused so that terrorists are not brought onto US soil or released to receive more training. Our leaders need to evaluate this threat more before simply trying to appease their constituents by fulfilling a campaign promise that was founded on lack of information

I hope that the US Agencies will work together better and share information.

I hope that we will all finally wake up and be willing to call a spade a spade and a terrorist a terrorist. If that means profiling, so be it. My family, friends, neighbors and coworkers are worth it to me.


12 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Peter Rabbit
    Jan 07, 2010 @ 10:45:50

    I am glad someone else on this site has taken up my fight. I love all of the sports articles but to me this is the greatest problem facing the world today so I am happy to see back to back days of wake up call articles.

    I totally agree with Squeaky, the increased humanitarian efforts for prisoners and movement against profiling are both crazy.

    Profiling is the best weapon we have against terror attacks. Countries like Israel that use it extensively have proven this. I dont know of any incident of terrorist issues on the Israeli airline and you would think they would be target #1.

    As for Guantanamo Bay I also could not agree more. You know when an American is captured he is beheaded on YouTube but when we catch a terrorist we provide the H1N1 and make sure they get full rights. Does really nobody see a problem with this?

    We should send all the liberals to a prison run by Al Queda for a month and see if they come back begging for more rights in our prisons.

    This is a war and it should be treated as such.


  2. kosmo
    Jan 07, 2010 @ 15:17:43

    In general, I’m not a big fan of profiling, but I’m not sure what other options exist at this point.

    I have empathy for the majority of Muslims who believe in a version of Islam that doesn’t condone killing in the name of Allah. Unfortunately, the extremists shout while the non-extremists whisper (not just on Muslim issues, but any political issue – the views of the extremists always get a disproportionate amount of attention. Admittedly, I don’t know a lot of Muslims, but my one Muslim friend has very little in common with these terrorists.

    The aspect of the Christmas day bombing attempt that I find the most disturbing is the fact that the guy’s dad turned him in and this apparently didn’t raise a huge red flag. Unless your relationship with your father is severely strained, I suspect that your dad wouldn’t rat you out to the authorities unless he was 99%+ sure.


  3. Peter Rabbit
    Jan 07, 2010 @ 15:38:45

    With most issues it is only the extermists that we have to worry about however as you said it is the extremists that give everyone a bad name and the ones we have to worry about.

    The normal Muslims should not only understand why we need to profile but should support it as its to protect them as well. If the typical terrorist fit my description then I would have no issues being profiled. In fact I have already been pulled out in airports more then my share of times and I understand it is part of security so I just do what they ask.

    Liberals want it both ways. They want us to stop terrorists but not use any weapons. Good luck to them “negotiating” with guys willing to blow them selves up.


  4. Squeaky
    Jan 07, 2010 @ 15:44:58

    Thanks Peter Rabbit, I couldn’t agree more. The time has come to utilize common sense in order to live. We have to connect the dots.

    Kosmo—I understand your reluctance to allow profiling. However, we need to allow our LE officers to utilize common sense including the use of profiling when it makes sense. Does that mean every Muslim is put through the rubber glove treatment? No. Does this mean that they are all subject to additional screening? No. For now it should only be the ones that fit the profile—age, race, religion and ties to certain countries. If those items fit, break out the rubber gloves and check the orifices, bags and clothing.

    We have to get past wanting to be loved by everyone so that we can live. Yes, we’re going to make some people angry and we’re going to offend someone. In my opinion, that is a small price to pay for our safety.

    Times are changing. There is a price either way. How do you want to invest?


  5. Squeaky
    Jan 07, 2010 @ 15:51:49

    One more thought—think about the wire tapping, email watching that the government used to do.

    Do you have anything to hide? Is it worth it that other people may see those embarrassing New Year’s pix of yours so that they can stop a terrorist attack?Kosmo, it may be harder on the agent reviewing your pix. =)

    Either way, they can see all of my personal purchases, listen to the conversations I have, check out my email daily if it helps to stop just one attack.

    Think about it, the prices are going up. Where you do stand? Continue to remember 9/11. Remember how you felt on 9/12. Every year we should all have to watch a 9/11 video so it remains fresh in our minds. That would be a small price to pay and likely make a significant difference.


  6. kosmo
    Jan 07, 2010 @ 17:03:12

    The major concern I have is that things would go too far – such as the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II.

    I could help with the eavesdropping. My wireless headphones do a nice job of picking up phone conversations of neighbors (not exactly sure WHICH neighbors, though). Some nosy people would love to have this ability … but I use the headphones to listen to audio of TV programs when I’m shoveling snow (just about the only non-sports TV I consume) and find it very annoying to have my show interrupted 🙂


  7. Wuzafuzz
    Jan 07, 2010 @ 17:12:36

    Squeaky hit the nail on the head. Inflated expectations of privacy have defied common sense. I’m all for increased screening activities, even if that means a little profiling or millimeter wave scans. Seriously, are we really that worried about some faceless TSA screener seeing us on a screen in some closed room? Have you seen those images? They show a lot less than your doctor sees.

    An immediate benefit of improved screening might be the removal of the newest round of draconian restrictions appearing on airline flights. By draconian I mean things like the inability to leave your seat during the last hour of a flight or the restriction against having a blanket or coat in your lap. Pray you don’t get cold or need to use the restroom. Improved screening could make for more pleasant flights.

    Wouldn’t it be great to replace the false sense of security created by those restrictive measures, with the real security provided by judicious use of common sense and modern technology?

    Security measures along the lines I recommend don’t sacrifice liberty in the name of “safety.” They do require us to re-evaluate our belief in an unreasonable level of privacy. Face it, privacy is already dead. Therfore, sacrificing security for illusions of privacy is foolish.


  8. Wuzafuzz
    Jan 08, 2010 @ 09:28:23

    One note of follow-up.

    Yesterday I heard a talk show discussing airline security. The host described the security procedures on the Israeli airline El Al. Obviously El Al has a need to take security very seriously.

    El Al’s confidence in their thorough preflight screening is so high they can permit reasonable activities onboard the aircraft. They actually serve food on the plane with metal silverware, including metal steak knives! In the U.S. we can’t even bring nail clippers through security. I’ve seen a lot of improvised weapons but the concept of nail clippers as weapons eludes me. At any rate, the realistic pre-flight screening suggested in my earlier comment would allow a reduced level of paranoia aboard the plane.

    I’ve heard it said that American’s would never tolerate El Al style security. Indeed, at first glance Israel’s experience with security issues would seem to eclipse ours. Certainly they have a longer history with such matters. However, our real history with terror precedes 9-11 by a much larger margin than most U.S. citizens realize or are willing to admit. Unfortunately the collective response from the whiners wants to pretend the predators aren’t out there. This is analogous to a child, standing in pain sight, covering their eyes so YOU can’t see them.

    We have real security concerns. We ignore them at our own peril.


  9. Squeaky
    Jan 08, 2010 @ 15:45:47

    Kosmo, I’m LMAO. Those headphones could be so useful. You’ll have to see if those headphones work on your baby monitor too. I’ve often wondered if our neighbors ever heard me singing to the girls. I’m sure they would promptly stop listening from the pain, but I’ve still wondered. It’s settled, you’re the eavesdropper.

    I’ll volunteer to handle those caught brining in contraband. I still have a couple of Asp’s that haven’t seen the light of day in years. They’re dying to have the dust brushed off of them.

    Wuzafuzz. I enjoyed reading your comments. Welcome to


  10. kosmo
    Jan 08, 2010 @ 15:51:58

    If your neighbors have a baby monitor, they can probably hear you. We recently bought a digital monitor because the old two-channel monitor would pick up other people, regardless of which channel we used.

    I get kind of grumpy when I wake up at 2 AM to attend to a crying baby – only to find out that it’s the neighbor’s kid.


  11. Squeaky
    Jan 08, 2010 @ 15:58:03

    There is only one good wake up call that happens at 2:00 am and THAT is not one for sure! I don’t think they had the digital ones back when our kids were at that age. I wish they had!


  12. Wuzafuzz
    Jan 09, 2010 @ 14:48:06

    Oh the things I heard on baby monitors when I was an apartment dweller! It was better than cable TV some days. Since I’m a radio geek I knew to edit myself when I was broadcasting.


Leave a Reply