[Guest post by DRJ]

The Obama Administration has determined that some detainees really are too dangerous to be released:

“Administration officials tell ABC News that the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force has determined that about 50 Guantanamo detainees should be held indefinitely for prolonged detention and that 35 detainees should be prosecuted under military or civilian trials. The indefinite detention of the 50 detainees was first reported by the Washington Post.

The task force has determined that there are too many difficulties in prosecuting their cases but determined that the men are too dangerous to be released. Many in this category allegedly spent time at al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks or were linked to the Taliban and continued to fight with the groups during the U.S. offensive in 2001.”

Here is the Washington Post article that originally reported this story.

At some point, the Obama Administration may realize America is at war.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The criminal trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui began last week in a New York City courtroom with jury selection and will continue Tuesday morning with opening statements. Pakistani-born Siddiqui attended Brandeis, is an MIT-trained neuroscientist, lived in Boston with her anesthesiologist husband, and is the mother of three children. Siddiqui was captured in Afghanistan with suspicious documents and is charged with trying to murder an American soldier outside Kabul, Afghanistan.

The parties offer vastly different profiles of Siddiqui. In this Guardian article, Declan Walsh summarized the prosecution’s facts that led to the charges against Siddiqui:

“On a hot summer morning 18 months ago a team of four Americans – two FBI agents and two army officers – rolled into Ghazni, a dusty town 50 miles south of Kabul. They had come to interview two unusual prisoners: a woman in a burka and her 11-year-old son, arrested the day before.

Afghan police accused the mysterious pair of being suicide bombers. What interested the Americans, though, was what they were carrying: notes about a “mass casualty attack” in the US on targets including the Statue of Liberty and a collection of jars and bottles containing “chemical and gel substances”.

At the town police station the Americans were directed into a room where, unknown to them, the woman was waiting behind a long yellow curtain. One soldier sat down, laying his M-4 rifle by his foot, next to the curtain. Moments later it twitched back.

The woman was standing there, pointing the officer’s gun at his head. A translator lunged at her, but too late. She fired twice, shouting “Get the fuck out of here!” and “Allahu Akbar!” Nobody was hit. As the translator wrestled with the woman, the second soldier drew his pistol and fired, hitting her in the abdomen. She went down, still kicking and shouting that she wanted “to kill Americans”. Then she passed out.

Whether this extraordinary scene is fiction or reality will soon be decided thousands of miles from Ghazni in a Manhattan courtroom. The woman is Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three. The description of the shooting, in July 2008, comes from the prosecution case, which Siddiqui disputes. What isn’t in doubt is that there was an incident, and that she was shot, after which she was helicoptered to Bagram air field where medics cut her open from breastplate to bellybutton, searching for bullets. Medical records show she barely survived.”

Early last week, one of Siddiqui’s defense attorneys claimed the prosecution’s evidence is not admissible and, in any event, Siddiqui didn’t do it:

“On Monday, defence attorneys asked US District Judge Richard Berman to bar testimony and evidence from Siddiqui’s capture in Afghanistan the day before the shooting. Prosecutors allege she was carrying a list naming the Stature of Liberty and other New York landmarks, and notes about chemical and biological weapons. Defence attorney Linda Moreno argued a jury should only consider whether her client fired a weapon – not her motive. She said there were no fingerprints or other forensic evidence to prove that her client had even picked up the weapon. “We’re saying she simply didn’t do it,” the lawyer said.”

On Wednesday, Judge Berman ruled admissible Siddiqui’s handwritten documents and any fingerprint evidence, but barred the prosecution from linking Siddiqui to any terrorist organization or offering printed materials in her possession that might suggest terror-related links or sympathies.

Collecting evidence and following traditional police procedures are difficult to do in war, and I suspect this case and the legal issues it presents will be a preview of the Guantanamo detainee trials yet to come.

– DRJ

PS — Don’t miss this October 2004 Boston Magazine article regarding Siddiqui written before the shooting incident.

[Guest post by DRJ]

ABC News reports a Michigan company that supplies high-powered rifle sights to the U.S. military inscribes references to New Testament Bible passages on the sights, including references to Second Corinthians, Revelation, Matthew and John:

“Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions “have always been there” and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is “not Christian.” The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.”

Using weapons with Biblical references raises military concerns that its actions will be viewed as a religious “Crusade” in the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

After reading the report that Nidal Hasan may plead insanity, I’m reminded of this December 2009 Andy McCarthy post that claims Jihad supporters are teaching at Fort Hood:

“It’s been brought to my attention by several reliable sources that the Defense Department has brought Louay Safi to Fort Hood as an instructor, and that he has been lecturing on Islam to our troops in Fort Hood who are about to deploy to Afghanistan. Safi is a top official of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and served as research director at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Worse, last evening, Safi was apparently permitted to present a check (evidently on behalf of ISNA) to the families of the victims of last month’s Fort Hood massacre. A military source told the blogger Barbarossa at the Jawa Report: “This is nothing short of blood money. This is criminal and the Ft. Hood base commander should be fired right now.”

ISNA was identified by the Justice Department at the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing conspiracy trial as an unindicted co-conspirator. The defendants at that trial were convicted of funding Hamas to the tune of millions of dollars. This should have come as no surprise. ISNA is the Muslim Brotherhood’s umbrella entity for Islamist organizations in the United States. It was established in 1981 to enable Muslims in North America “to adopt Islam as a complete way of life” — i.e., to further the Brotherhood’s strategy of establishing enclaves in the West that are governed by sharia. As I detailed in an essay for the April 20 edition of NR, the Brotherhood’s rally-cry remains, to this day, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” The Brotherhood’s spiritual guide, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a fatwa in 2004 calling for attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, openly declares that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe.”

Unfortunately, there’s more at the second link.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The AP reports Defense Secretary Robert Gates will remain in his post for another year:

“Gates, who has said he considers himself a Republican, told President Barack Obama in December that he would stay on at least through the end of 2010, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told The Associated Press.”

Walter Russell Mead recently described President Obama’s foreign policy approach as part-idealist, part-pragmatist. Obama is like most presidents in this respect but I think he’s more of a pragmatist, albeit sometimes a reluctant one. Thus, it does not surprise me that Gates has become his foreign policy soulmate.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Pentagon sources confirm that 20% of all detainees released from Guantanamo are returning to the fight:

“A new Pentagon analysis shows the number of former Guantanamo detainees that it says have returned to the fight has continued to rise to 20 percent, up from the 14 percent recidivism rate released last spring. The latest increase continues the upward trend from the two previous reports.”

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell suggested the increase is due in part to the difficulty in evaluating recent and current detainees vs earlier detainees:

“Some of the initial cases were — were — were more obvious than others. Some of them were deemed to be less of a threat than others. I think as we are getting down to the final couple of hundred, that these are clearly very difficult cases.”

Amazingly, the Obama Administration appears to claim that it is conducting the first detainee threat assessments:

“A White House official told ABC News, “We have been presented with no information that suggests that any of the detainees transferred by this administration have returned to the fight.

“The President created the Guantanamo Review Task Force to conduct the thorough work that had not been done before: to review the relevant information about each detainee, including the threat they pose, to determine whether they should be prosecuted, detained, or transferred. Decisions about detainees are made on an individual basis only after all of that information is considered by an interagency group that includes the Defense Department, law enforcement, and the intelligence community.”

I don’t believe this. There is no indication the Bush Administration released detainees without a threat assessment, and suggesting they did is contrary to Department of Defense statements like this one from March 2007 regarding the release process and annual detainee reviews:

“Also today, DoD announced the completion of the second round of annual administrative review boards at Guantanamo Bay. The boards, which ran from Jan. 30, 2006, to Dec. 6, 2006, resulted in 55 recommendations for transfer and 273 recommendations for continued detention.

Administrative review boards are review processes that provide detainees an opportunity to appear before and present information to a three-member board of military officers. The board members make a decision about the detainees’ status based on the current threat assessment and intelligence value of each detainee.”

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

President Obama reportedly told his national security team today:

“This was a screw up that could have been disastrous. We dodged a bullet but just barely. It was averted by brave individuals not because the system worked and that is not acceptable. While there will be a tendency for finger pointing, I will not tolerate it,” a White House official says in the Situation Room the President said.”

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs also announced the United States was suspending transfers of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen.

There are very few things that President Obama and members of his Administration say that I like, but I like both of these. Now we’ll see if they follow through. Thus, will any of the remaining Guantanamo detainees be released and, if so, where and under what conditions? Will there be reprimands and personnel changes because of this “screw up”? And does the finger-pointing ban mean President Obama and his Administration will stop blaming Bush?

– DRJ

UPDATE: What do Michael Yon, Joan Rivers and the Newark Airport have in common? Via Michelle Malkin, they are more Homeland Security screw ups.

[Guest post by DRJ]

The suicide bomber responsible for the explosion that killed 8 CIA agents and security personnel in Afghanistan was a Jordanian informant:

“[A] former senior intelligence official confirmed an NBC News report Monday that the bomber was Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a 36-year old doctor from Zarqa, Jordan. He was arrested over a year ago by Jordanian intelligence, and was thought to have been flipped to support U.S. and Jordanian efforts against al-Qaida.”

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Erick Erickson at Red State claims President Obama’s mishandling of the recent CIA deaths in Afghanistan has damaged America’s intelligence mission in Afghanistan and elsewhere:

“It appears Barack Obama inexperience and amateurishness has just started bonfires on the bridges connecting him to the American intelligence community and delivered a huge, HUGE psychological win to Al Qaeda.

People tell me the President’s rush to acknowledge the attack on the CIA in Afghanistan and mourn the deaths openly, publicly, and via press release is a huge no no. The CIA and greater intelligence community would prefer not to have the attention put on them. Additionally, because the President took the time to draft a blanket statement focused on the CIA in general instead of individually and more privately focusing on the families of the victims, it acknowledges the CIA’s work in Afghanistan, acknowledges that the attack has an impact on the CIA, and gives the terrorists a new recruiting tool — “you too can cause America to publicly mourn the loss of their spies.”

Erickson also notes the White House is “subtly blaming the intelligence community for the failure to deduce the Delta/Northwest attack.”

I don’t want America to fail whether we have a Republican or a Democratic government, and I especially don’t want Americans to die because of intelligence or wartime failures. But if Democratic mishandling of the War on Terror wakes up politicized members of the intelligence community who declared war on the Bush Administration, it may be worth it in the long run.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Abdumutallab was talking but now he’s not:

“Abdulmutallab – who was “talkative” right after his arrest – has now stopped cooperating.

But, sources say the suspect has already provided a wealth of intelligence.”

How much more might we learn if Abdulmutallab were currently detained at Guantanamo and subject to military rapport-building or FBI interrogation techniques instead of sitting silently in the federal criminal system?

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina today dismissed all manslaughter and weapons charges against five Blackwater security guards accused of killing 17 Iraqi citizens in Baghdad in 2007, citing government overreaching:

“Justice Department prosecutors improperly built their case on sworn statements that had been given under a promise of immunity. Urbina said the government’s explanations were “contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility.”

Apparently the court found the government compelled the guards to provide evidence against themselves in the equivalent of a Garrity interview. In Garrity v New Jersey, the United States Supreme Court “held that when a police officer is coerced, under threat of discipline, to give a statement, the officer is immunized against the use of the statement in a subsequent criminal prosecution.” The Blackwater case involved a similar situation:

“After the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened.

Investigators promised the men that their statements were to be used only for the internal inquiry and would not be introduced in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.

The deal meant that prosecutors had to build their case without using those statements. Urbina said the Justice Department failed to do so. Prosecutors read those statements, reviewed them in the investigation and used them to get search warrants, Urbina said.”

Judge Urbina did not reach the issue of whether the shooting was proper.

This incident was very controversial in Baghdad and the Iraqi government pressed to have charges filed in Iraq instead of the United States. This dismissal will likely result in a backlash from Iraqis.

– DRJ

UPDATE 1/1/2010 — Outrage from Iraq:

“The Iraqi government vowed to pursue the case, which became a source of contention between the U.S. and the Iraqi government. Many Iraqis also held up the judge’s decision as proof of what they’d long believed: U.S. security contractors were above the law.”

[Guest post by DRJ]

Seven CIA officers and the CIA base chief at a pivotal forward operating base were killed Wednesday by a suicide bomber wearing an Afghan National Army uniform, and six more CIA officers were injured. The bomber’s ability to infiltrate the secure base is worrisome:

“The use of an army uniform raised the possibility that the uniform was stolen or that the Afghan National Army ranks had been infiltrated by insurgents, a potentially more serious and pervasive problem.

The attack happened close to dusk, when some people on the base were finishing their daily work and relaxing or taking a break before dinner or before returning to their offices for the evening.

A NATO official said the bomber managed to elude security and reach an area near the base’s gym. Among other questions raised was whether the bomber worked at the base and had clearance, or if a security slip allowed him to gain entry.”

The deaths reportedly doubled tripled the number of CIA officers killed since 9/11:

“The attack dealt a significant blow to the often insular, tight-knit intelligence organization, which has lost only 90 officers in the line of duty since its founding in 1947.

Previously, the spy agency has revealed that four of its officers have been killed since the Sept. 11 attacks, all of them memorialized with stars carved into a marble wall at the agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va.”

My condolences to the families of these heroes.

– DRJ

UPDATE: The AP reports the suicide bomber had been invited onto the base as a potential informant. Sources report that either he was not searched or he set off the bomb as he was about to be searched.