War Commentary

Emptying Prisons In Cuba

No, the headline isn’t about a repeat performance by Castro, but about releasing most of the prisoners from Guantanamo. But the story has me scratching my head:

Most of the alleged al Qaeda and Taliban inmates at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are likely to be freed or sent to their home countries for further investigation because many pose little threat and are not providing much valuable intelligence, the facility’s deputy commander has said.

OK, seems reasonable to me. But I emphasized those three words to put them in contrast with this:

“We don’t have a level of evidence to feel that we can be confident to prosecute them” all, he added, according to the newspaper. “We have guys here who have never told us anything, except to say that they want to cut off the heads of the infidels if they get a chance.”

Can someone help me reconcile this? Does someone who “wants to cut off the heads of infidels if they get a chance” really “pose little threat”? I mean, it’s not like these are exactly idle desires, as we’ve seen from the videos recently at various Islamic web sites. They really do it. And last time I checked, I was an infidel, by almost anyone’s definition, but certainly by these guys’. So is it unreasonable for me to feel safer if they remain caged up in Guantanamo?

Now I understand that we may not have any legal grounds for holding them within our criminal justice system (though even that’s kind of surprising–is it standard practice to parole someone who cheerfully admits that he’ll decapitate innocent folks given half a chance?), but we are at war. Frankly, if it were feasible, I’d be happy to cage up everyone who wants to lop off infidels’ heads, no matter how many million of them there are. We obviously can’t go out and find them all, or read their minds, but if we already have some in custody, and they admit that they’re going to try to murder us upon release, does it really make sense to release them?

Of course, it may not make sense to feed and clothe and guard them the rest of their days either. So I’ve got a modest proposal. How about we shorten a few of them by a few inches? With a pork-fat laden blade? Not all of them, just the ones who profess to think that a fitting fate for us infidels? It might serve as a salutory example, and at least they might quit being stupid and brazen enough to brag about their evil intentions toward us.

Obviously, we’re not going to do this, but sometimes I despair of any way of winning this war without resorting to such measures. How do we share a planet with people (and right now there are thousands, perhaps millions) who want nothing except, as the alien said in Independence Day, for us to die? If their minds cannot be changed, and changed in a way that we can feel confident that they’ve been changed, what can we do short of imprisoning or killing them?

Other than converting, or dying, I mean.

[Via Orin Kerr]

Political Commentary

What He Said

Joe Katzman has one of the best explanations that I’ve seen for my reasons in thinking that a President Kerry would be a disaster, even though I too think that it’s vital that we somehow, despite the odds, develop a second major party that has the defense of the country foremost in its mind:

I…understand the impetus to look at two candidates who offer less than the times demand, and see the stakes before us, and tell oneself that Kerry will have to do the right thing.

But you know what? He absolutely does not.

Look at Europe now, or look back into human history – illusion and passivity in the face of real threats is an option, and some leaders and states will take it.

One question: is Kerry one of those people? Simple question. Simple answer.

Kerry’s positions on issues like Iran are clear, and were openly stated in the debate: normalize relations with the world’s #1 terrorist sponsors while they undermine Iraq & Afghanistan, offer them nuclear fuel, propose sanctions the Europeans will drag their feet on in order to stop a late-stage nuclear program that’s impervious to sanctions anyway, and oppose both missile defense and the nuclear bunker-buster weapons that would give the USA defensive or offensive options in a crisis.

Gee, I’m sleeping better already.

Despite the fact that I think that George Bush is in many ways disastrous, and wish that there were a viable alternative, I remain convinced that the only realistic alternative would be even worse. And I think that the best way to slap the Dems in the face, to throw the bucket of icewater on them, to wake them up from their hysterical dreamland, is to repudiate them thoroughly at the polls–to force them to face reality, and shed themselves of their delusions about the enemy we face.

Space

What A Day

And then there were three.

On the forty-seventh anniversary of Sputnik, on the day that the Ansari Prize was won, astronaut Gordon Cooper, one of the original Mercury Seven, has died. Of those seven, only Scott Carpenter, John Glenn, and Wally Schirra remain with us.

Of course, he was not an uncontroversial astronaut:

In his post-NASA career, Cooper became known as an outspoken believer in UFOs and charged that the government was covering up its knowledge of extraterrestrial activity.

“I believe that these extraterrestrial vehicles and their crews are visiting this planet from other planets, which obviously are a little more technically advanced than we are here on Earth,” he told a United Nations panel in 1985.

“I feel that we need to have a top-level, coordinated program to scientifically collect and analyze data from all over the Earth concerning any type of encounter, and to determine how best to interface with these visitors in a friendly fashion.”

He added, “For many years I have lived with a secret, in a secrecy imposed on all specialists and astronauts. I can now reveal that every day, in the USA, our radar instruments capture objects of form and composition unknown to us.”

Nonetheless, he was a hell of a pilot. Rest in peace in the cosmos.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!