Jihadist' Jail @ Gitmo. America's National Disgrace

Forget, if you can, the fact that Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility (acronym GTMO or Gitmo for short) is a significant recruitment tool for the worldwide Jihad. That alone should pattern our decisions surrounding it's existence.

Instead, let's simply focus on the details.  Even if we choose to transfer the terrorists housed in Gitmo stateside, we will pay for their lives (well over half are on hunger strike and must be force fed) for the rest of their lives. The cost of doing so at the Gitmo facility in Cuba makes everything exponentially more expensive.

From strictly a perspective of ANOTHER socialized program for tax payers to endure, this one is one of the worst. I realize that modern day prisons are also a really bad socialized means of making us feel safe from criminals, because it mostly trains them to do crime and sends them back on our street to test their skills before they finally get sent to prison to stay as habitual prisoners; habitual meaning they've practiced a lot.

If the government is considering an abandoned facility to house
terrorists, what about Camp Leatherneck's wasted facility?

What exactly does locking up suicide terrorists actually protect us from? Colorado republican Senator, Cory Gardner, rejects the notion of sending Jihadists to Colorado's Supermax prison, or to an abandoned prison in Colorado, but quickly admits that terrorism will continue whether WE behave humanely or not.

I scratched my head for quite some time after Gardner made that statement (2/23 on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Report) because I suddenly realized that Gardner, and everyone who agrees with him (including Marco Rubio), has decided that our image in the world means nothing one way or the other, so why should America care one way or the other?

Why should we continue to uphold some old aged sense of decency that hasn't stopped evil doers from attacking the bastion of freedom in order to weaken freedom as a whole?

Why should integrity and values matter when dealing with the Jihad? Are we always expected to address evil with wisdom and restraint?

Essentially, these are the type of questions you have to ask yourself in order to justify the persistence of Gitmo, America's jail for the Jihad......which, by the way, doesn't house everybody who joined the Jihad, ONLY middle eastern captured enemies.  What jail is Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) being held in?

If so many Americans are truly convinced of the necessity of a Jihadi Jail @ Gitmo, they have to accept that we are abandoning former core values by doing so; core values that former president George W. Bush may have to answer to one day.

In essence, WE the People of the United States of America, have chosen to fight this particular fire by circling the fire starters within a ring of fire, pushing back every detainee who'd prefer the fiery death option by use of a really expensive pitch fork no less.

To respond to any evil with even a small dose of its own medicine doesn't change evil or its way. It changes US.  For now, fear and anger are enough to keep Gitmo operational because the GOP is full of both emotions, and in full control of both houses of congress too.

Until WE temper the emotions that caused Gitmo to be in the first place, it remains our knee jerk reaction to an immediate crisis that our past two presidents have now admitted was a grave error. Those who think it belongs around FOREVER are stuck in crisis mode and incapable of guiding this nation away from Gitmo or the fear and anger of terror.
As long as terror produces fear and anger and breaches of the Geneva convention pact, terror succeeds.

Bergdahl & GITMO. Politics Of POW's Or Politics As Usual?

Afghan detention center prisoner cells.

Guantanomo Bay Detention Facility, most commonly known as GITMO, is destined to remain one of the hottest issues in America for some time coming.  While prisoners of war and POW detention centers are hardly a new thing, terrorist wars that have no end are.  Despite our best efforts to be the nation shaped by the Geneva convention that we helped to construct, war has redefined itself and so must war standards.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is as good an example as any.  According to the military that accepted Bergdahl, AWOL and deserting one's post are common to the military.  Common enough that such behavior has rules and regulations surrounding it.  In the face of such behavior, Sgt. Bergdahl and all soldiers are subject to a military review and could potentially be discharged from the military.  Outside of that process, Sgt. Bergdahl, who became a Sargent. while in captivity, should be recognized as all soldiers are recognized...including his Sgt. status.

In the process of recruiting soldiers, it might become necessary to change our standards surrounding our credo, "no man left behind".  According to some American's, Bergdahl might not be worthy of what was done to provide for his release.  Stories tell an account of six men that died in the search for Bergdahl. The five GITMO inmates that are feared to return to the war could someday kill even more American soldiers or citizen's who travel abroad. Maybe they even craft the next 9-11 attack on American soil, but our values must remain intact.

Sometimes in an auction environment you want to wait for the field to bid and sneak in to capture the prize after a bloody bidding war. At other times, you need to end the auction instantly with an aggressive bid that insures success.  If Bergdahl was the figurative item for auction, Obama's team chose the "go big" approach, but they also did so in the spirit of old America, the place that still honors things like the Geneva Convention Agreement and the military terms of enlistment.

GITMO is our blatant failure of the Geneva agreement. Offering up a few prized inhabitants of the facility seemed an obvious means of avoiding the political ramifications of ending the war in Afghanistan and "leaving one behind".  Debating the terms of Bergdahl's release is a matter of domestic opinions. International relations are tied to the GITMO detention center and nations worldwide are looking to determine if prisoner of war standards have now changed.  American hostages have always had a uncertain international value, but prisoners of war are unique.  Killing a POW not only defies the Geneva accord, it leaves you without a valuable tool in the end of war exchange process.

Yet, would we be better if we refused to live up to standards that our enemies reject?  Would we be more humane if we left deserters deserted? Or how about if we simply slaughter the remaining GITMO detainee's and never worry about them in the field of battle again?   Is old war black and white but new war gray from the smoke of an uncertain battlefield or are we willing to use anything these days in the pursuit of politics?

This whole line of questioning makes me sick.