The Big Question: Should a failed attack alter Gitmo's closing?

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's Question:

Should last week's failed airline bombing affect President Barack Obama's plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center? 

Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:

It was a dumb and ill-conceived idea in the first place. How can it get any dumber?

Peter Navarro, professor of Economics and Public Policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

Gitmo is the perfect place to house terrorists.  The facility is well-guarded and secure as well as difficult to target by other terrorists. If the prisoners escape, they wind up in Havana, not Chicago.  There is no rational reason to close that facility other than bleeding heart politics.  If we make mistakes in who we arrest, it doesn’t matter where they are detained.  Fix the right problem.  Let’s have the debate.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:

If anything, it should accelerate plans to close Guantanamo and also accelerate efforts to confirm TSA appointees.

Brent White, professor of Law at the University of Arizona, said:

Of course not.  The would-be bomber Abdulmutallab was not released from Guantanamo.  This argument is a red herring from those on the Right who are shamelessly trying to use the failed Christmas bombing to their political advantage.  While we might rightly question whether or not to send released individuals to Yemen, not sending them to Yemen doesn't mean that they have to be held at Guantanamo.   Guantanamo is a blight on our country, a symbol of the lawless excesses of the previous administration, and it needs to be closed.

Bruce E. Gronbeck, professor of Public Address at the University of Iowa, said

No.  The facility itself is still an international embarrassment and a violation of our own rules of law.  The administration has already made the important move of sorting prisoners into those who'll receive civilian-public trials and those who'll be subjected to military tribunals. And, one suspects, there will be some who'll be held indefinitely as enemy combatants in various sites at home and abroad. Get rid of Gitmo now!

A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, said:

The Christmas Day terror incident will absolutely affect President Obama's plans for closing Guantanamo Bay and it should. Of the remaining detainees in Gitmo, 90 of them -- more than half -- are Yemenis. We now know two of the men who plotted, from Yemen, the failed Christmas Day attack on Northwest Airlines, were former detainees released by the Bush administration from Guantanamo in late 2007. They were shipped off to Saudi Arabia where they were enrolled in a "art therapy rehabilitation" program and were released, not remotely rehabilitated, to join Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula where they masterminded the PETN plot for Christmas Day and one can only imagine what else they have in store.
 
The question of Yemen as a terrorist breeding ground and a new front in the fight the United States is now waging against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and whereever else will rise to the forefront when Congress returns after the holidays and begins investigating this near-tragedy on Christmas Day. The concern over transferring more Yemeni nationals out of Gitmo will be bipartisan -- few believe the Yemen government will keep them locked up. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said current plans for emptying Gitmo may have to be reconsidered. "In terms of sending more of them to return to Yemen, it would be a bit of a reach," Thompson said.
 
Obama is on course to blow his original, far too ambitious deadline of January 22, 2010 to close Guantanamo Bay, he should take more time to get it right.

Brad Delong, professor of Economics at the UC Berkley, said:

Well, it seems to me that the attempted Detroit underwear airplane bombing reinforces the urgency of shutting down Guantanamo, and our other "black sites" around the globe.

The guy's father is on our side: he tried to warn us, and the databases Bush State and Bush HSA built over their eight years in office (a) didn't distinguish between threats, mere persons of interest, and rumors, and (b) could not talk to each other so that the visa database would know when someone's visa should be pulled.

But as a result of Guantanamo--and the other black sites--a lot fewer people worldwide are on our side than were on September 12, 2001.

My guesses: We have kidnapped and held without anyone ever reviewing our reasons and evidence for suspicion 15,000 people worldwide since September 12, 2001. 500 of those, perhaps, had some association with Al Qaeda. 14,500 did not, Of those 14,500, we have tortured perhaps 3000. Of those 3000, perhaps 100 died under torture.

Each of those 100 has, in turn, 200 relatives, friends, and acquaintances who now know that someone innocent who they know well was kidnapped and disappeared by the U.S government: that's 20,000 Al Qaeda sympathizers created right there. Each of the 2900 who survived has 100 people they know well enough to be outraged at the fact that somebody they care about was tortured by the U.S. government: that's 290,000 Al Qaeda sympathizers right there. And each of the 11,500 who have lost years of their lives because we could not get our act together to figure out that they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time--well, they and their relatives are not too happy either.

So over the Bush administration Guantanamo and its ilk have removed 500 Al Qaeda operatives and associates from the globe--and created several hundred thousand Al Qaeda sympathizers. That looks like a very unfavorable loss ratio to me.

We badly need people like  Alhaji Umaru Mutallab on our side. Keeping Guantanamo open drives more and more of them away.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

The antics of the panty-bomber have certainly provided a lot of grist for the War Party’s mill. Not only is his failed attempt the occasion for the opening of a new front in our eternal “war on terrorism,” in Yemen, but now we are told that ex-inmates of Guantanamo are among the “leaders” of “Al  Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula,” (AQAP), which, we are told, planned and executed the Christmas Day incident. That’s the official story – but is it the truth?

AQAP is a shadowy organization whose origins and personnel are described by various “experts.” Yet these experts are either frauds, or else confused by the sheer complexity of having to undertake their analyses from a distance of several thousand miles, because – to take just one example, chosen at random – let’s go to this Christian Science Monitor piece about how the new focus on Yemen calls into question the administration’s decision to close Guantanamo.

“The attempted Christmas Day attack is focusing more international attention on Al Qaeda activity in Yemen, much of which has been organized by former detainees from Guantánamo Bay, reports Al Jazeera. Two of its leaders have been linked to the US-run island prison: Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, a field commander, and Said al-Shihri, its deputy leader, who was transferred to Saudi custody and then released in 2007.”

Okay, so if you follow the link above, helpfully provided by the editors of the Monitor, it takes you to this Al Jazeera piece, purporting to describe the provenance and current leadership of “Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula,” which states:

“Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, another former Guantanamo detainee, has also been identified s a field commander for the group.”

Mr. al-Oufi, however, seems to have had yet another change of heart, according to his Wkipedia entry, which is backed up by several credible references. Reuters, Agence France Presse, and the New York Times all reported on 2/17/09 that al-Oufi had surrendered to Saudi authorities in Yemen. A slightly different story was reported by the Saudi Gazette, which claims he turned himself in to Yemeni authorities at the border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. CNN says the Yemenis “captured” al-Oufi, who was then turned over to the Saudis.

Al-Oufi was among those released to the Saudis from Guantanamo, who then “turned” him – via a “jihadist rehabilitation program,” which involved (believe it or not!) “art therapy,” among other rehabilitative techniques – and set him free. He subsequently relapsed into his former habits, joining “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula,” until he turned himself in again – and, according to Wikipedia, “is scheduled to return to the rehabilitation program.”

This really is a joke, especially when we see that al-Oufi was giving “evidence” to Saudi officials that Iran is sponsoring “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.” Yeah, sure they are – and, hey, by the way, I have a bridge in Tehran you might be interested in buying.

Of course, most Americans don’t have time to sit around tracing the contradictory stories floated by our government officials and various others who have a vested interest in keeping the war-racket going. They don’t have the leisure to prove that the Saudi “franchise “ of Al-Qaeda, which supposedly “planned” the panty-bomber’s escapade, is a shadow without much substance. They don’t have the opportunity or the patience to follow the complex storyline and unpack the narrative being peddled to them as “fact.” All they know is that the mainstream media is telling them Yemen houses the new “enemy,” and that our Glorious Leader has declared that we will pursue them there – and everywhere.

So Diane Feinstein should relax, because the ABC News report referenced in that Hill piece  is plain wrong. The confusion is perhaps due to al-Oufi’s name change: when he’s pretending to be “Al Qaeda on the Saudi Peninsula” he’s “Mohamed Atiq Awayd Al Harbi.” When he’s being “good,” he reverts to his “al-Oufi” moniker.

 Lazy “reporters” fail to do their homework – and the War Party smiles ….