GITMO is just ok AG Holder is running into roadblocks on his way to close GITMO

WASHINGTON, DC—Attorney General Eric Holder is having a difficult time in closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility in Cuba. Congress has not yet appropriated the money necessary to relocate and house the enemy combatants currently held at GITMO.

But AG Holder is not only facing budgetary problems now and arguably into the future, he’ll also be facing legal opposition—and not just from elected officials. President Obama’s dedication to closing GITMO isn't exactly shared by its resident terrorists—that’s right, GITMO detainees wanting to stay in Guantanamo Bay.

Why, you may ask?

At GITMO, the detainees are given access to religious materials, allowed to exercise, all of the things allowed under the Geneva Convention. But if transferred to a supermax prison in the United States, the detainees would be subject to supermax rules and that means lock-down for twenty-three hours a day.

In a January Newsweek blog, an attorney representing some of the captured enemy combatants says they’ll sue to keep from being transferred to a supermax facility.  

And this is just another example of the folly of making a circular political campaign promise square with reality; there never has been a real reason to transfer the detainees and NIMBYs of all stripes certainly don’t want them in their back yards. It would be the ultimate knee-slapper to see Mr. Obama’s administration to go toe-to-toe with the likes of the ACLU.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

With friends like these in Kabul, who needs enemies? Karzai is showing the international community his true colors

Kabul, Afghanistan—Hamid Karzai’s comments that he’ll join the Taliban were clearly designed to garner attention, any attention, and to distract from the sham elections his country just held. No one is really buying the I’ll just take my toys home temper-tantrum the Afghani president is spewing but it does point the elephant in Kabul—an administration that is double-dealing and playing both ends against the middle.

Afghanistan’s leaders are the most corrupt among the world over and attempts to even remotely disguise it are being cast aside. Figuring he’s got nothing to lose, Karzai doesn’t have many friends at this point, so why not go for broke?

The Afghan invasion was to root-out the Taliban and wayward Al Qaeda members but has since turned into a conflict without a clear goal and practically no exit strategy. This is not the fault of the US military or any of its allies; it is the dubious product of a citizenry and corrupt government that has no interest in a peaceful future.

President Obama, Congress, and military commanders have a challenge perhaps two-fold more difficult then those that were faced in 1974; we wish them all the best and hope for a victorious resolution.

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

From MAD to madness The president promised he’d unilaterally disarm the US, he meant it

On October 22, 2007, then candidate Barack Obama in a video speech to the Caucus for Priorities promised to unilaterally disarm the United States of its nuclear arsenal and much more…

“I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending.

I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal.”

Now, President Obama has begun to make good on his promise. Under the president’s new policy, any country that attacks the United States with chemical or biological weapons would be subject to a swift Shepardizing of sorts by administration lawyers that will determine if the attacking country has been in compliance with the Non Proliferation Treaty and gotten a stamp of approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency before a US response.

Taking the most effective deterrent off the proverbial shelf will certainly embolden US antagonizers, in fact, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has leap in front when he said on Iranian national television, "Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. 

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

An Uncertain AfghanistanThe Left compared Iraq to Vietnam, they couldn’t have been more wrong

For years, the far left and even mainstream democrats decried the “occupation” of Iraq as akin to the “quagmire” during Vietnam. But in 2010, Iraqis have gone to the polls once again in their fledging democracy and are pulling themselves up by their collective bootstraps.

Afghanistan, however, is an entirely different story, but one America has heard before. The incursion into Vietnam was on behalf of democracy itself, there was no treasure to be had in the Jewel of Southeast Asia. While Iraq offers a strategic outpost to split Iran and Syria and a steady flow of oil, Afghanistan has no such strategic geographical position and certainly nothing to offer but war torn land—much like Vietnam.

And like Vietnam, Afghanistan is ruled by corrupt officials that are particularly interested in America’s sacrifice so long as they can profit from it.

President Obama’s recent surprise visit is certainly a welcome one but as Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters noted on The O’Reilly Factor last week, it sent the wrong message by going under the cover of darkness. While we cannot disagree with Lieutenant Colonel Peters’ analysis, the mission at large is moving in the right direction, the question is to what end?

-- Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe

Click here to contact