National Security

CAIR cut off, but will it last?

The FBI has severed relations with CAIR, the dishonest and slippery Council for American Islamic Relations. For this we give thanks. But it’s one down, and several dozens of “moderate” Islamic front groups to go. For background, here's an IBD editorial. Now let's all write our representatives to encourage them NOT to talk to CAIR! Emphasize they are NOT a “civil rights group” that represents a religious minority persecuted by “Islamophobes”. Point out that CAIR is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood who has vowed to destroy our civilization and our freedoms.

The reason this is important: CAIR will try to “end-run” FBI officials and apply pressure to members of the FBI’s Congressional oversight committee. This is where we can help. I implore you to join me in doing so. Only large numbers of cards, letters, e-mails and faxes can counteract the large sums of Islamic petro-dollar lobby money.

I would also recommend you retain the contact information for your Senators and Congress persons, because we will be needing them often in the Obama era that's now underway.

UPDATE: Since the above was written, it appears the CAIR end run is already starting. Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf is pushing the FBI not to cave in under the new administration. Steve Emerson and the Investigative Project on Terrorism have the story.

Intl. law frowns on Ritter-Gitmo plan

Slight problem with Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's proposal to bring the Gitmo detainees to Colorado's SuperMax federal prison complex. It's not only a bad idea that should be opposed on policy grounds -- it would actually violate the Laws of War. References: Channel 7 "Could Gitmo Terror Suspects be coming to Colorado?" ... Denver Post "Ritter favors bringing detainees to Supermax"... Rocky "Lawmakers urge Ritter not to accept Gitmo prisoners."

Now, I was a bit rusty on my Laws of War instruction as the story broke, but when I heard about Ritter's proposal to bring captured enemy combatants to Colorado's civilian prisons, something didn't ring quite true - so I decided to do a bit of research. I didn't have to dig very far (heck, I'm not even a lawyer) to discover the following:

The Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War states specifically that combatant prisoners may NOT be held among the general (civilian) prison population. The language of the convention is quite clear: regarding where captured enemy combatants may be held, Article 22 of the conventions states clearly and unequivocally that "they shall not be interned in penitentiaries."

So, when do the impeachment proceedings and war crimes trials begin?

Afghan policy way off track

As Obama prepares to wade deeper into Afghanistan, President Karzai complains on Fox News about two things: his lack of control over American military operations in his country and the fact that "civilians are being killed". Here's the link. Comments:

* The Taliban embed themselves in civilian areas specifically for this reason. If Karzai succeeds with his demands for control and "no operations in civilian areas", it would neuter our military operations and give the Taliban a free pass.

* Karzai continues to demand more and more aid. This plays into the erroneous secularist notion that terrorism is caused by "poverty": not true! Violence is a tactic of JIHAD! We can waste billions over as many years as we wish but it will not change a thing: JIHAD will persist.

* JIHAD is the sacred obligation of all Muslims to struggle against unbelievers to impose The Shari'a Law on the whole world! It is a goal that Karzai and the Taliban have in common. We delude ourselves if we believe we can establish a "democracy" in this medieval tribal society, because Islam and democracy are utterly incompatible and irreconcilable. Why waste the blood and treasure on an unattainable goal? Forget the purple thumbs and understand Islamic Theology!

* We would do far better utilizing our resources to formulate an energy policy that eliminates our need to import oil from the Middle East. Doing that would defund and defang "JIHAD"and save Western Civilization.

Jihad in Southern Colorado?

Channel 13 in Colorado Springs reported local reacation on the Obama administration possibly relocating Gitmo terrorists to the Supermax prison in Florence.  The reporter interviewed two women that are residents of Florence.  One woman is the local library director and the other apparently was a woman on the street.  Both women expressed complete comfort with the idea and said they believe the facility itself and the staff are quite competent to take on this unique set of inmates.  The news anchor commented that Florence residents are in favor of bringing radical Islamic terrorists to their town because it would create jobs. The question is not whether we can have confidence in Supermax and it's courageous, highly trained personnel.  None of the criminals there have escaped and threatened me or my neighbors, and I don't even worry about that happening.  However,  I am not in favor of bringing terrorists to Colorado or any other location on our mainland. 

Gitmo was put in place to keep such people away from the general population because they pose a serious threat and a clear and present danger.  The people they align with and want them free are also a threat.  While I adamantly disagree with the President's decision to close Gitmo and then toss around several ideas as to where in the United States these criminals will end up, I especially think Colorado is about as poor a choice as could be made. 

Governor Ritter is in favor of bringing the inmates here.  Residents need to consider the fact that the Colorado Springs area has been considered a possible target for terrorism, especially since 9/11.   In addition to Ft. Carson, Cheyenne Mountain AF Station, the Air Force Academy, Peterson AF Base, Schriever AF Base, we have Homeland Security and several large defense contracting firms.  This area could become even more of a target if we house terrorists that no one else on the planet wants.   Our governor should put the safety of our people first, ahead of any political consideration.

Several years ago I was employed at St. Thomas More Hospital in Canon City.  We provided medical care to inmates at the various prisons that was outside the capability of the prison healthcare units.  As part of our ongoing training, we were made aware of the fact that violent criminals have families and friends that come in and out of the area to visit inmates.  In addition,  people that have an unfriendly attitude toward a prisoner also come and attempt to enter the prison to visit.  Of course, visitors are screened and may be turned away, but they are in the region, spending time in our communities.   If a very violent inmate required hospitalization or emergency care, extreme safety measures were mobilized to secure the safety of hospital employees and the surrounding neighborhood and community at large.  The possibility of a friend or family member possibly trying to stage an escape during transport or while the patient was receiving medical care was anticipated, with appropriate planning put in place.  If we house radical terrorists in prisons in Southern Colorado, and our new policy dictates that we are more sympathetic toward them, will we not be forced to allow these prisoners to have visitors?  If they ask to have the privilege of visits from families, friends and religious leaders, will we have the ability under new guidelines to deny those privileges?  Given the new policy directives, we will at a minimum allow them to meet with legal counsel.  Would we not also be required to allow them to have visitation rights similar to other inmates?  The question then becomes, do we want the friends and associates of terrorists coming in and out of our state?

Congressman Doug Lamborn has spoken out against this proposal and if you agree that our state should not take on the responsibility and possible additional terror threat, write to President Obama and Governor Ritter, and also write to Congressman Lamborn and others to support their efforts to take this possibility off the table.

 Contrary to the newsclip on News Channel 13, the support expressed by two residents does not amount to a concensus that everyone in the area welcomes the Gitmo Jihadists to our great state.  Having lived in Canon City, I know many people there and in Pueblo who are not in favor.  This is an important debate and our readers that feel strongly one way or another have an opportunity to participate in the discussion.  If our voices aren't heard, they aren't given consideration. 

Panetta at CIA = Carter deja vu

Remember the Gilbert and Sullivan song: “So landlubbers all, wherever you may be, if you want to rise to the top of the tree, stick close to your desks and never go to sea, and you all may be rulers of the Queen’s Navy!” This was written in the 1860s just after the British government of the time appointed some political hack as Secretary of the Navy.

Does this not apply to Mr Panetta, who has no intelligence experience, and this at a critical time in the war with Jihadists?

We can expect his politically correct bias to impose new restrictions, like Harding’s Secretary of State who shut down the post World War I code-breaking operations, stating “Gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail!”

Maybe Mr. Panetta will require our obtaining Osama Bin Laden’s endorsement prior to our taking any actions? After all, we don’t want these “victimized” Islamist groups to feel marginalized!

Rather than being the new FDR, President-elect Obama is showing himself more and more Carter-esque!