« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

National Security Requires Solid Planning

By: Congressman Frank Lucas (Diary)  |  January 27th, 2009 at 08:05 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Last week, President Obama issued an executive order closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which houses hundreds of suspected terrorists and enemy combatants.  I was shocked by this announcement, but even more concerned by the fact that the President had no plans as to what would happen next.

Where would these prisoners, terrorists who are intent on harming Americans, go?  Would we release them on American soil?  Transport them to American prisons?  Return them to their country of origin?  And if they stay in this country, what rights would be afforded to them?

If they are released or transferred to another country, we cannot ensure they will not return to the battlefield or attempt to attach Americans or our allies.  In fact, according to the Pentagon, 61 detainees who were released from Guantanamo have returned to terrorist activities.  One in particular, Said Ali al-Shihri, was released in 2007.  He then planned and executed an attack on the American embassy in Yemen in September 2008, which killed an American.  Releasing all detainees back to their home country would only swell the ranks of the terrorist organizations that are bent on destroying this country, making our citizens less safe at home and around the world.

I have heard discussions about moving detainees to American prisons, but President Obama gave no instructions as to which prisons they will be moved.  In one report, Oklahoma’s Fort Sill was mentioned as a suggested location.  I am outraged at that possibility.  I will not allow President Obama to turn our state into a terrorist dumping ground and expose Oklahomans to these violent and dangerous individuals.  Our prisons are already functioning at full capacity and are strained to meet their present requirements.  Our federal prisons were not designed to hold international terrorists and enemy combatants, not to mention the fact that we would be introducing terrorists into our prison populations.

If terrorist detainees are brought to this country for trial, President Obama established no directives regarding their legal rights.  America has one of the highest legal standards in the world, making it very difficult to try and convict criminals.  While this is set up to protect American citizens, in this instance, it would allow some of these terrorists to be released because of loopholes.  I can’t imagine what President Obama would say to the American public if September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was released onto American soil because of a legal technicality.

This move in Mr. Obama’s first week in office is alarming.  By radically curtailing our military’s ability to detain terrorists and enemy combatants with no other alternative option given, he has made this country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.  I am interested in working with the administration to come up with real solutions on how to deal with detainees if Guantanamo is closed, however there must be a solid plan put in place before making a decision that affects our national security.

Frank Lucas represents Oklahoma’s Third Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.  For more information, please visit www.house.gov/lucas.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Jack

    He shuts down gitmo and then he says he will have a blue ribbon commission to tell him what to do next. Hey Barry what if they come back and say “Don’t close gitmo no mater what”?

    What do you do then messiah?

    • CJB68

         The quantity doesn’t really concern me so much as the number who did resume terrorist activities upon being released.  When you had at least one of them assume a leading role in Al Qaeda in planning and directing an attack which claimed American lives, it begs the question of whether we should even take any prisoners on the field at all.  Obama’s flying by the seat of his pants, literally.

         Policy decisions like the ones he’s been making now for the past week tend to give me the impression that the only thing the Socialist-Democrats and their ideological twins amongst the Republican party (some of whom are “Republican in name only”) don’t so much want to change America as destroy it…

      • jhayes

        >>>Where would these prisoners, terrorists who are intent on harming Americans, go?

        Probably to one of the high security prisons that are currently housing other convicted terrorists in the United States. Florence, Colorado has a very secure prison where more than a few terrorists are spending the remainder of their miserable lives.

        • Kyle-MI

          I could deal with terrorist being in a jail near me as long as they stayed there for the rest of their lives. What really worries me is the liberal tendency to treat terrorist in Gitmo like common criminals. Does anyone else worry that our soldiers who captured these people on the battleground never read them their Miranda warning and never even dreamed of taking the proper law enforcement procedures for collecting evidence? I certainly don’t believe they should but what will stop liberal lawyers and judges from making these arguments?

        • CarlSchurz

          Why not hire them on as clerks and gophers for US Congress. KSM could be Obama’s body man.

          After all, all they were doing was walking through the Desert picking flowers and thinking happy thoughts before Evil McBushhitlerburton came along and tossed them into Gitmo like Jews in the Concentration Camps.

          /sarc

          • jhayes

            Who is claiming that they are harmless?

            My point is that there are plenty of terrorists in jail on American soil, at this very minute – and they aren’t going anywhere. If you look at the record, the UMCJ has been far more successful within our borders in getting convictions than at Gitmo.

          • DONTREADONME

            I do not know the answer to this but if you bring foreign nationals into the country and house them on military bases INCONUS wouldn’t that mean they deserve Constitutional protection?

          • JustLeaveMeAlone

            German POWs were housed in the USA. I do not know what protections they were afforded, and I’d like to hear from someone more knowledgeable.

            I’m sure they were treated according the terms of the Geneva Convention, given that there were uniform-wearing servicemen in a declared war. That’s not the case the the Gitmo inmates.

          • CarlSchurz

            Did guard duty somewhere in Texas before getting sent to the Pacific. The story he told was that the German POWs treated better than they were. The Red Cross made sure they weren’t abuse. The Red Cross does not care how a country treats their own soldiers.

            In a few cases, the German POWs were allowed out of camp, alone. They came back willingly.

            And, a funny story. On guard duty in the truck that was driving down the road. The truck hit a bump and the Sergeant’s M1 Carbine fell at the foot of a German POW. The German POW reached for it, every GI froze. The German calmly gave the weapon to the Sergeant. What could he do, he had an ocean to cross to get back to the Fatherland.

          • DONTREADONME

            Without a declaration of war by Congress can not the case be made that these detainees do not fall under the Geneva Convention. Also, FDR was a wartime president with wartime powers through Congresses Declaration of War. I just wonder how the moving of detainees to American States will cause anything other then one big fiasco.

          • CarlSchurz

            That case cannot be made. It is an armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions apply.

            There is nothing wrong with moving Prisoners. Germany did that often. They just have to have the Protections that they are entitled to and such agencies as the Red Cross have access.

            There are instances where the Geneva Conventions do not apply (as much as Libtards wanna disagree). For instance, during the Battle of the Bulge there were German soldirs masquerading in Allied uniforms. Under the Geneva Conventions they are spies and spies are afforded no protection.

          • JustLeaveMeAlone

            The GC should not apply. And I’m danged if I can support extending the rights of American citizens to these people.

          • CarlSchurz

            We signed and ratified it. We are honorbound to follow its dictates. It is called the Rule of Law.

            If they signed it, they get the protections. If they wear a uniform (something as simple as an armband), carry their arms openly and follow the Conventions, they get the protections even if they did not sign it.

            The 1st Protocol extends protections to all combatants. There are no lawful or unlawful combatants. We did not ratify the 1st Protocol nor the 2nd.

          • CarlSchurz

            Mercenaries are given no protection.

          • DONTREADONME

            but if it has to do with the conference at the Hague then maybe I have leg to stand on.

          • cantrim

            but these are not soldiers, they are jehadests to whome the rules do not apply. do they conform to gc? i didn’t see the entery alowing decapatation in the name of jehad was alowed.

          • CarlSchurz

            The Geneva Convention covers ‘Guerillas’. It covers all ‘Beligerants’.

            According to all four GCs (excluding the 1st and 2nd Protocols) all they have to do is abide by the GCs and they get covered. At a bare minimum they must carry their arms openly.

            All Parties that get ‘combatant status’ are also required to have access to Military Lawyers and Due Process.

            Theoretically, you cannot harm Jihadists after they are Hors de Combat as their actions would not be punished by their own Chain of Command…

            I know what you are saying, they are Criminals. Put they are Beligerant Parties to an armed conflict and get protections regardless of what they do,

            The problem, we need a Geneva Convention covering Terrorism.

          • Achance

            when you capture jihadis, you just turn them over to the Afghan Army, which does not seem to be much troubled by legal nuance. The problem we had in Iraq is that we didn’t have anybody to turn them over to for so long.

          • CarlSchurz

            Which may be illegal. We cannot put combatants that are out of combat into Jeopardy. I do not think Afghanistan is a Party to the Conventions. Thus they are not bound to obey the Laws of Warfare.

            The United States has not ratified the 1st or 2nd Protocols. We are bound only to follow GC’s 1-4.

            The Geneva Convention allows for battlefield execution in two instances; Spies and Mercenaries.

          • janis

            They are doing the work Americans aren’t allowed to do–more’s the pity. The jihadis deserve a quick and permanent end. Kudos to the ones smart enough to deal it out to them. Less trouble for us and for our military.

          • David123

            In June 1942 8 Nazi saboteurs sneaked into to the United States from submarines, put on civilian clothes and tried to pass themselves off as regular Americans. They were caught, tried by a military commission in August 1942 and all were sentenced to death. The President commuted the sentences of the two most cooperative nazis to long prison terms; the other six were executed in the summer of 1942.

            No involvement by the ACLU or other civilian attorneys. No worry about the Geneva Convention, for these illegal combattants – though Germany and America generally treated each others LAWFUL combattant POWs decently. I don’t see the difference between these nazis and the illegal combattants at Gitmo, except that the nazis were less dangerous.

          • CarlSchurz

            Those Germans were German beligerents who donned US civilian attire which is a prohibited ruse of war. They further were intending to committ sabotage, in this case the destruction of war effort related industry. It is a capital offense, it would’ve gotten a US Civilian executed. The acts were illegal in toto.

            If they had remained in uniform the entire time, they would have had POW status. Guerilla warfare is not prohibited in any way by the Laws of War.

            German soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge donned US and British uniforms, infiltrated the lines and caused all sorts of havoc. Donning the opposition uniform is illegal and constitutes them being a spy. You can deal with spies anyway you want.

            Operation Bodyguard, the misinformation campaign that surrounded Operation Overlord was a legal act. Even though many ruses were used.

            All one has to do to be protected is at a minimum carry your arms openly. Apart from that, have a chain of command, wear a distinguishing uniform, abide by the Rules, and you are protected.

            If you capture enemy beligerents you cannot simply take away their GC Conventions, even if they do not follow the GCs. They can take hostages, use human shields, kill civilians indiscriminately, and you still cannot have battlefield executions.

            There are only three instances that I can find where battlefield executions are legal; Mercenaries, spies and fake surrender.

            You must take prisoners, you cannot kill beligerents who are out of combat either by surrender or incapacitation. NO QUARTER is a grave breech of the GC and is considered a War Crime.

            Even then, those German Saboteurs were tried before a court, found guilty and punishment was dealt out. It was in accordance with the Hague Conventions.

        • rbdwiggins

          The problem is treating national security as a matter for law enforcement and the federal judiciary. Under those conditions, it is a battle the United States, and consequently the rest of the world, will lose.

  • Justin_Case

    by the seat of his pants.

    His minions must be very happy.

    • Praveen

      Most people here agree with your views.

      You mentioned that you won’t allow the President to turn your state into a dumping ground. You also say “I am interested in working with the administration to come up with real solutions on how to deal with detainees if Guantanamo is closed, however there must be a solid plan put in place before making a decision that affects our national security.”

      I have cpl questions:
      1>What if some other state becomes a dumping ground?
      2>In case “solid plan” does not materialize despite your attempts, what is the plan? Do you intend to Organize fellow Republicans and turn this into a nationwide issue?

      You will get tremendous support here. We will need to do better. As one of the blogger (I think it was Moe Lane..) here had in the signature “Don’t mourn me!! Organize”.

  • haydus

    I wonder where the Congressman got that number. Are there 245 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, or thousands?

  • rbdwiggins

    unless the Federal Judiciary is restricted to only those cases that fall within its enumerated constitutional authority. National security is not one of them, and neither is the intelligence community, nor the global war on terror.

    Sadly, this will not happen, because it requires an admission from congress, followed by specific congressional action.

    First, Congress must freely admit that the inherent constitutional authority of the Executive does indeed exist, and Congress must openly admit that the Federal Judiciary has overstepped its constitutional authority by usurping those rights reserved for the Executive.

    Second, Congressional action is required which demands that the Federal Judiciary adhere to the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

    • cantrimcantrim

      how about we put them all on house arrest and shack them up with obama and the rest of the libs who cried to have gitmo closed. that way the rest of us will still be safe and THEY can deal with the people who would love to see them dead.

      • nathanl

        First, I apologize to do this, but call him “President Obama”. I know you don’t like him, but respect the office. Nothing made my blood pressure shoot up faster than hearing some liberal twit say “Bush” like he was on a first name basis with the president. Secondly, I say put them in prison, for one good reason, but with one good requirement: put the terrorists in a state that voted for Obama, then they can deal with the consequences of voting for the man. The reason to send them to prison? Well, it’s because of a fact that i heard a while ago. Pedophiles are treated the worst by other inmates. Why? because the other criminals view even them as filth. Let’s see how long a couple of terrorists last living with several hundred other murderers who want them dead.

        • nathanl

          …broke my own rule. meant to put “put the terrorists in a state that voted for President Obama, then they can deal with the consequences of voting for the man.

          • cantrim

            mabye one of these days i will call him president. unfortunately every policy and ex order coming out of the guy thus far strikes me as heresy. can’t get over it. to me it is disrespectful to have nothing short of a socialist sitting in the highest office this land has to offer. can’t get over. and should i.
            second, my comments were facetious. of course i agree with you in saying put these terrorists in those states that voted for the ‘great one”. but to drive the message home make it closer.
            i do not understand the people in this country who seem to have such concern over the civil rights ( in which they don’t have any seeing as how they are enemy combatents ) of those who wish to see them dead. they don’t want to be your friend, they don’t want equality, they don’t want democracy, they don’t want freedom. they want genocide.
            and to extend your point. would these same people have a problem with gitmo if it housed sexual predators, child rapists, or the convicted ( as they so hope ) bush administration. i think not.

  • DONTREADONME

    I wonder if the hinting of sending Gitmo Vactioners to OK is payback for the full support of McCain in ’08. Just another X-file from me here.

  • devCharles

    I wouldn’t mind if there were terrorists imprisoned in my state, but I don’t really see how a normal prison is prepared for, essentially, trained guerrilla fighters. I’m not involved in the military or prison system or anything, but I would assume it’s a completely different dynamic from various murderers to these people. Some people are saying that we should send people to ADX Florence, but that’s operated near capacity.

    It would seem to me that the government would have to build a facility like ADX Florence to deal with this. It wouldn’t be surprising if that took more than a year to make. The US government expects to convict around 70 of the detainees. I do say we should move those proceedings along and make some judgment calls on whether or not those people are really people worth incarcerating. This legal limbo thing does seem pointless. What’s the problem with putting these people through proceedings?