No Alternative to Gitmo

Let's not shed any tears over the three detainees who suicided at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba last week. They were imprisoned at Gitmo not at random, or in violation of anyone's human rights, but to keep them off the battlefield in the global war on terrorism. According to Pentagon sources, they were:

· Ali Abdullah Ahmed, 37, a mid-to-high level Al Qaeda operative who had key links to principal al-Queda facilitators and senior membership. Ahmed was a close associate of al-Zubaydah, who in turn is a confidante of Usama bin Laden. Throughout his time in GTMO, Ahmed was non-compliant and hostile to the guard force. He was a long term hunger-striker from late 2005 to May 2006. The administrative board reviewing his case recommended Ahmed for continued detention in GTMO;

· Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi, 30, a member of Jama'at Tabligh, a militant missionary/recruitment group for al-Queda and other terrorist groups. He had knowledge of JT's operations in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan, and was recommended by the administrative board for transfer to another country for continued detention; and

· Yassar Talal Al-Zahrani, 22, a front-line fighter for the Taliban. Zahrani facilitated weapons purchases for Taliban offensives against US and Coalition forces. He was captured by Afghan anti-Taliban forces and participated in the Afghan prison uprising in Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan which resulted in the death of CIA officer Johnny Michael Spann. He, too, was designated by the review panels to remain at Gitmo.

Every inmate at Gitmo has had his case reviewed by an administrative board annually, and those who weren't deemed dangerous or of further intelligence value have been released, or will soon be. What remains are the worst and most dangerous.

To the drama queens of the New York Times editorial page, the deaths were, "...the inevitable result of creating a netherworld of despair beyond the laws of civilized nations, where men were to be held without any hope of decent treatment, impartial justice or, in so many cases, even eventual release." Baloney. RAdm. Harry Harris - Joint Task Force GTMO commander - had it right when he said it wasn't an act of desperation, but rather a continuation of their war against us. Two things prove Harris correct. First, these men were dedicated terrorists. They weren't a bunch of Saudi cab drivers picked up at random and imprisoned for our perverse amusement. Dying in a way that hurts the enemy -- us -- is one of their definitions of success. The three suicides were coordinated: same time, same method, and same kind of concealment. These were political acts calculated to create precisely the kind of political pressure to close Gitmo now coming from terrorist apologists here, in the UN and in Europe.

Second, and something the "human rights" lobby doesn't want you to know, is that prison suicides are both unavoidable and not all that rare. According to the latest Bureau of Justice statistics, an average of 43 prisoners out of every 100,000 in American state jails committed suicide in 2003. In state prisons, the number was 16 per 100,000. There have been about 800 people held for various periods at Gitmo and many have attempted suicide. That more haven't killed themselves is a testament to the humanity and dedication of the American soldiers, sailors and marines serving there. There's no reason to believe that the conditions at Gitmo, or the treatment of the prisoners there, has anything to do with these suicides. But that does nothing to dissuade people from condemning Gitmo. Tony Blair evidenced the European attitude by calling the three suicides "a sad incident." What is sadder - and much more dangerous -- is the complete unreality that clouds the European view of terrorism. On Tuesday, the European Parliament, following the lead of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, passed a resolution calling on the United States to close the Gitmo terrorist detention center. Neither should be taken seriously.

The gap that separates the United States from Old Europe is wider than the Atlantic. When President Bush speaks about the "global war on terrorism," Europeans scoff. They don't believe there is a war and some of their representatives who have visited Gitmo have said just that. Like Democrats here, Europeans believe terrorism is a problem for law enforcement. They claim Gitmo is illegal: a place where presumably innocent people are held indefinitely without trial.

Where we see a war between western civilization and radical Islam, the EUnuchs of Old Europe see only American over-reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan and Iraq. George Bush asked Congress for a resolution authorizing military action against terrorists and the nations that support them. Tony Blair had to ask England's lawyers for a legal opinion before sending British troops into battle. When we spirit prisoners away to secret locations, they don't see that we're pressing our intelligence advantage. The Europeans only see it as a violation of the "human rights" laws that have paralyzed them into inaction against home-grown and imported terrorists.

In next week's US-EU summit, the European Union plans to call again for Gitmo to be closed. Presumably, their view is what it has been before: close Gitmo or bring charges against everyone held there. Anyone held without charge is, to them, held illegally. They are, in fact, dead wrong.

First, the people held at Gitmo are - despite the left's claims - held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. We are - by our definition, regardless of what the EUnuchs think - at war. Thus, we have to apply Geneva to determine who is entitled to prisoner of war status. Because "lawful combatant" is defined explicitly, and because the Islamofacists are - with metaphysical certainty - not lawful combatants, they are not entitled to POW status. But because they are combatants, and we are belligerents in this war, we are entitled under international law to hold them in confinement - without charge or trial -- until the war is over. Even if that's in the year 2525.

Second, there's no reasonable alternative to Gitmo. We can't just release these guys because we know they'd return to their old habits of killing Americans and our allies. We don't want to hold these people in the US for many reasons including the danger they pose and the ideology they'd metastasize to other prisoners in regular jails. It's within our rights under international law to keep them right where they are. And we won't do what Islamofacists would in our shoes: kill and not take prisoners except for hostages to be murdered in view of a video camera.

In an interview with BBC Radio on Monday, the reporter asked me why we shouldn't have to charge or release the inmates of Gitmo. I offered him a solution: why don't we give each Gitmo inmate a one-way ticket to London's Gatwick airport and have done with it? He wasn't enthused by my suggestion. Maybe if we upgraded the tickets to first class...