Flynn Files -- Gitmo a Terrorist Revolving Door?

The Pentagon acknowledged today that at least seven detainees released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have since resumed a life of terrorism. According to Fox News, one former detainee killed a judge in Afghanistan, two more got killed fighting against allied forces in Afghanistan, and a third is currently in the news for threatening the lives of two kidnapped Chinese engineers in Pakistan.

We are in a war. Why were these terrorists released?

Last I checked, the other side doesn't have a very good track record in its treatment of prisoners. Certainly there was no prisoner-swap that we all failed to hear about. The war didn't end either, which is another time when it's customary to release enemy combatants. So why were these men unleashed upon the world? Because political correctness trumped the aims of the war on terror.

The usual suspects have been whining about Guantanamo Bay for several years. For evidence of this, look here, here, here, and here.

Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. In the more than two centuries since Adam Smith wrote these words, liberals have yet to grasp this basic concept.

Part of being actually and authentically merciful to the guilty is not allowing them to persist in their transgressions against the innocent. It is better for the souls of these terrorists to be held accountable for their crimes and duly punished or, if the case warrants, executed. The justice of restraining and subduing the guilty, the criminal, is certainly heightened in a time of war (and so these releases of terrorists are wholly unjustifiable) but is just as true in the case of Mumia as it is in regards to an Afghan terrorist.

"Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent"

Best quote I've seen in a long time.

I can't understand why these people are being released when more and more "foreigners" are being kidnapped and eventually killed in Iraq every day.

Adam Smith was right. But in the case of the release of the detainees of Guantanamo, there has been no conviction and therefore no guilt. How can we whine about the release of these men and their activity thereafter, when we don't complain about a lack of public trial or finding of fact? If they had been deemed guilty, I hope they would have been executed. We will never know the facts that led to these men's release and therefore should make no comment as to their guilt or innocence. We cannot discern whether a correct decision has been made when there had been no public trial. I understand that in a time of war, prisoners might not recieve a public trial. I wonder if we can have a war against an enemy that is not a nation? Von Clausewitz didn't seem to think so.

Blind faith in our government is not a proposition Adam Smith would have ever entertained, and if you do have blind faith in our government, then you would accept that these men had been released under the proper conditions and circumstances (ie: they were not guilty). I do not believe they were innocent. I would love to know the truth. I try to refrain from expressing my opinion because my government will not trust me with enough information to properly form one. But this is America. Anyone can express a spurious opinion. I suggest that this column is no different than the opinion of the "usual suspects" against which it rallies.

Let me preface this by saying if any of the prisoners are guilty of committing acts of terrorism, they should be punished. I have no sympathy for terrorists who are captured and punished.

I am also a proponent of habeas corpus. These priosners are not POW's in the legal sense (they are not members of an enemy nation's military). Therefore, they must be charged with crimes and convicted for the US government to deprive them of liberty (or even life). Charge these prisoners with murder or attempted murder or even conspiracy, but charge them. If the govenment can detain a terrorist without charging him with a crime, then it can detain anyone without charging without a crime.

And I realize that the US government may suspend habeas corpus in time of war. However, that constitutional clause has always bugged me. It means that the goverment can arbitrarily detain anyone during a time of war, which I object to.

Dear Sir,
Please stop using labels. I am pro choice because I think what a woman does with her own body is her business not mine. I am against ever higher taxes being forced on citizens thru the federal,state,county and city governments. I am against going to war like we did in Iraq because no one in Iraq had invaded America anywhere. I am for hunting down and killing every Al Qaeda member and its leaders where ever they are in the world. I am for smaller more effective governments on all levels in America. I am for balancing the federal,state,county and city budgets thru wage cuts of all of their employees. These people are like the govt. workers of the former USSR. They do not produce anything. Privatize as much as possible and do away with the rest. So what am I liberal,conservative,Jeffersonian. I declare a new political party now the "Jeffersonian Party"
Send questions for our platform to donlemuria@aol.com.
I am saddened by the loss of soldiers in Iraq. I am angered by the back door draft of soldiers cannot come home after thier tour of duty. If my commanding officers in the Air Force had tried to that I would have been court martialed. I would not have served another day past my commitment. Remember 15 days and a wake up and we are back to the world?? If you are a veteran you do.

It is insane that the ACLU and CCR are working for the release of terrorist killers. These people are exploiting our legal system, the very system they have declared war on and vowed to destroy. The left has a fundamental misunderstanding on winning the war and is consist in siding against America.