Not terrorists silly…refugees
During the daily State Department briefing yesterday, Assistant Secretary of State Phillip J. Crowley took political correctness (aka weakness when you are in a war) to a new level altogether. From Human events:
During the daily State Department briefing, the Assistant Secretary of State unveiled the new terminology (Video here at 24:10 minutes):
REPORTER QUESTION: Talk to us a little bit about response and talks and any commitments that you may have gotten from our European and other friends in the international community about taking in Guantanamo detainees as the camp in Guantanamo is expected to close at some point in the near future. Have you gotten any commitments from our European friends and anybody else?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY PHILIP J. CROWLEY: Ambassador Dan Fried continues his efforts to resettle, you know, Guantanamo refugees to various places around the world.
Resettling refugees?? Seriously? Last I had heard, a refugee was something of a victim. One with no where to go in the midst of war, chaos, famine or other devastating disaster.
Refugee camp??
The 9/10 mindset of this administration marches forward. They cannot even admit that we are still engaged (maybe because the President himself refuses to be engaged personally) in a war on terrorism, and now we refer to terrorists themselves as victims? This all happening of course while the administration cannot figure out how to handle their thoughtless, hasty decision on closing Guantanamo Bay. They keep throwing the idea around of throwing these helpless refugees into civilian courts with a brand new set of rules, highlighting the pre-9/11 mindset of terrorism being a law enforcement issue, and not a military issue. It is frighteningly inept and naive to think that way.
It is sad to see the highest levels of our government completely take cover and hide from even using words that may offend. When it comes to the safety of America, wouldn’t one consider America first in these type of situations. Why would we throw out words that would garner sympathy around the world for the prisoners and terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay Cuba? They are the worst of the worst (umm, hello Khalid Sheik Mohammed) and do not deserve the sympathies of decent people anywhere. They aim to kill. They aim to kill Americans. Sadly the American government is to weak-minded to say just that.
© 2009, The Political Fish. All rights reserved.
Hardly any of the detainees have actually been tried in a court of law and found guilty of any crime whatsoever. If they are enemy prisoners of war, they are entitled to certain rights, which they have not been given. If they are not then enemy prisoners of war, what are they exactly? To call them “terrorists” is to apply a broad label to what is most likely a heterogeneous group of people; a large proportion of the people held in Abu Ghraib for instance had nothing to do with any Iraqi insurgency but were arrested on sight and tortured within the walls of that prison, some for years! It is not too far a bound of logic to assume that the case also holds true in many US prison camps.
With regards to KSM, you are right that he is certainly a bad man. His dubious associations alone subject him to suspicion. That said, in America, a person cannot be made to confess to a crime while under duress. KSM was repeatedly tortured for a period of years by US forces in Guantanamo and in a secret prison elsewhere. In my personal moral opinion, this invalidates any testimony he may give. He is a broken man and the very least the government of America should do is release him unqualifiedly.
As to whether it is more correct to call the detainees at Guantanamo refugees rather than terrorists, I’m not sure. Neither label seems to fit them well.