Frank Gaffney on Closing Gitmo: “Are You Feeling Lucky?”

images (84)Frank Gaffney testified at a Senate Judiciary hearing on closing the enemy detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This is his opening statement:

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
July 24, 2013

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Wednesday that closing the Guantanamo Bay prison would be a serious mistake, citing the adherence by terrorists to Sharia law and their “obligation to destroy us,” as well as the possibility of al-Qaeda members being freed upon transfer to the United States and its deadly consequences.

Gaffney, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, reminded committee members why Gitmo was built in his opening statement.

“It is because we are at war,” he said. “We’re at war because others attacked us, and in your wisdom, you here in the Congress gave the authority to fight back … We are fighting, I would suggest, against people who adhere to a doctrine they call Sharia. Not all Muslims do, but those that do adhere to this doctrine believe it is their obligation to destroy us, to force us to submit to their will. That bears directly upon this question of what happens if they are allowed to return to the battlefield, and I think we all agree, recidivism among those who are released from Gitmo is a problem.”

Referencing the violent prison assault by al-Qaeda in Iraq Monday, Gaffney said a similar fate could befall a U.S. town unfortunate enough to hold members of the terrorist network if Gitmo closed.

“Are you feeling lucky?” he asked. “Do you want to take a chance? My guess is you will find much more violence inside the federal prison system, not least because these individuals will be engaged in proselytizing their form of Islam, Sharia, inside the prison system, but beyond that you will almost certainly have their colleagues trying to do what was done in Iraq yesterday by al-Qaeda, which is to try to spring them, or at the least inflict harm upon an American community that has the misfortune of incarcerating these people.”

Gaffney finally expressed concern that U.S. federal judges could possibly release former Gitmo prisoners if they were transported to federal prisons in the U.S.

“I find that beyond malfeasance were we to go down that road,” he said. “It is dereliction of duty. I pray you will not close Gitmo, and I hope that my testimony will encourage you not to do that.”

Left-wing advocacy group Code Pink, with members present at the hearing holding pictures of Gitmo prisoners, was predictably angered by Gaffney’s remarks.

Loving the Enemy

UNited in HateBy Janice Fiamengo 

Proclaiming himself a conciliator and a moderate with a vision of Americans “stand[ing] with each other” and “paying their fair share,” President Barack Obama is in fact one of the most partisan presidents ever to occupy the White House. Fine-sounding words notwithstanding, he is a leftist ideologue and no-holds-barred political fighter whose practice has consistently been to demonize the American equivalents of the hated kulaks (farmers) and petit-bourgeoisie (small business owners) persecuted in the Soviet Union. Obama’s enemies include those “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as well as the presumably benighted bigots who fail to realize that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” With his anti-American, neo-Marxist outlook shaped by mentors and heroes such as Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, and Jeremiah Wright, Obama is naturally inclined to be suspicious of freedom and to feel sympathy for groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reflex affinities such as Obama’s have a long, bloody history, and anyone wishing to understand the threat posed by the Obama administration to the fabric of America is well advised to place its policies and rhetoric in a comprehensive historical perspective. How is it that an educated person can be attracted to totalitarian ideologies and predisposed to reject the freedoms of the western world? This was, arguably, the central question of the twentieth century, and it has assumed a renewed urgency since 9/11, a time when leftists have applauded terror attacks on the United States and claimed that America’s enemies are in fact righteous victims. What is one to make of their seemingly sophisticated arguments justifying atrocity? Can such people really believe, to cite only a few examples, that the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by a longing for social justice? That the Palestinian leadership is committed to peace with Israel? That people are better off in Cuba, with the highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, than in the United States?

Jamie Glazov responds to such questions in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror (2009), a brilliant investigation that not only extensively documents leftists’ support for brutal regimes, but also diagnoses their worldview as a psycho-social syndrome of pathological dimensions. Leftist hatred, Glazov demonstrates, has less to do with specific political programs or economic systems than with a deep-rooted disenchantment with democratic freedoms and a corresponding “negative identification” with violence.

The objective evidence for leftists’ love of tyrants is substantial, and Glazov presents it convincingly with a blend of facts, anecdotes, and analysis. We learn, for example, about the massive effort on the part of western Communists to repress, distort, and recast the horrors of Stalinist Russia, including the purges that killed millions and the forced famine in the Ukraine that brought the peasantry to its knees. New York Times reporter Walter Duranty turned the reality of Ukrainian starvation into a cheerful tale of abundance, lying so aggressively in favor of Stalin’s policies that when the Manchester Guardian‘s Malcolm Muggeridge tried to report the truth-that peasant were dying en masse-he was mocked and derided, ultimately losing his job.

When leftists turned their attention to other bloody Communist regimes in Cuba, North Vietnam, China, and Nicaragua, many high-profile members of the western intelligentsia were eager to travel there to report on the miraculous gains that had supposedly been achieved. Susan Sontag wrote of Castro’s Cuba with fanatical admiration, denying the dictator’s atrocities and downplaying limitations on freedom, even going so far as to claim that “No Cuban writer has been or is in jail,” and that “the great majority of Cubans feel vastly freer today than they ever did before the revolution.” Making his pilgrimage to Hanoi in 1970, Noam Chomsky accepted as gospel all the nonsense his North Vietnamese hosts told him about the regime, as did Gunter Grass after a tour of a model Nicaraguan prison, which led him to enthuse that there was no room in the new regime for revenge-this in a country that had executed 8,000 political enemies and jailed 20,000 in the first three years of the revolution. (Hollywood’s Oliver Stone, with his glorification of Stalin and denunciation of the U.S. as “an Orwellian state,” is a current exemplar of this suicidal distemper.)

After the collapse of Communism, it has been déjà vu all over again with radical Islam. Immediately following the terrorist assault of 9/11, a jubilant chorus of university professors and progressives across North America refused to express horror for the attacks; instead, they blamed America, with Ward Churchill calling those who had died “little Eichmanns” and Nation columnist Katha Pollitt lecturing patriots who wanted to fly an American flag that it stood for “jingoism and vengeance and war.” Hundreds of so-called anti-war demonstrations were organized almost immediately to express solidarity with the Taliban regime that had harbored the attackers and to paint the United States as a warmonger. Since then, droves of leftist lawyers have worked to obtain release for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay and to strike down legislation intended to help the United States guard itself against future attacks. Even when Islamists testify in court that their terror quests are inspired by Koranic injunctions to kill infidels, leftists insist that they are (justly) resisting American oppression. Western feminists routinely defend Islamic misogyny-wife beating, honor killing, genital mutilation, the burqa-and will not admit that women live better lives in the western democracies. And leftist gays march in anti-Israel rallies, joining with Muslim queer-bashers to denounce the only country in the Middle East where homosexuals can live securely.

Read more at American Thinker


The Muslim Brotherhood, Clinton State Department, John McCain and Today’s Lax Security Mindset

By Christopher Holton

There was a time when it was considered necessary and proper to be concerned  about possible foreign influences in US government and military service. Way  back in 1981 when I first filled out forms as part of the process for joining  the US military (it was a DOD form, I don’t remember the number) I had to answer  a specific question regarding travel. The question asked if I had traveled to  any of a list of nations after certain dates (all communist bloc countries) with  a date listed by each nation (the date that each country had turned  communist).

Anyone who joined the military in the Cold War era probably  remembers this form and this question. If the answer to the question for any of  the nations involved was “yes” you had to provide a complete explanation for the  reason for the trip, when it took place, etc. Having never visited countries  like Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, the Soviet Union, etc., I can’t say that I  know what the process would have been had I answered yes.

But the point  is, if you wanted to join the US military and you had even visited any communist  countries, the Department of Defense wanted to know about it.

Fast  forward to today. We are locked in a mortal struggle against a force not unlike  communism. In fact, it has been called “communism with a god.” That force is  Islam as defined by the Shariah doctrine which forms the basis for it. There are  certain countries and organizations that are prominent in the enemy threat  doctrine. Yet, to my knowledge, today we have no similar safeguards in place to  what the DOD had during the Cold War years to check on the influence of foreign  powers on American institutions.


This all stems from a complete failure of our leadership to put America on a war  footing in the wake of 9/11. Our leaders have failed to identify the enemy. They  have failed to even try to understand the enemy threat doctrine. In fact they  have even denied that an enemy threat doctrine even exists. As a result of this  culture, an imperialist, nefarious organization with long-standing ties to  terrorism and with goals identical to those of Al Qaeda itself, namely the  Muslim Brotherhood, is treated as a friend, rather than as a foe. If you even  suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood might be an enemy of America, Hillary  Clinton, John McCain and Anderson Cooper will attack you as if you are a  wild-eyed bomb-thrower. We are indeed through the looking glass.

Read more: Family Security Matters