United Nations to Sit in Judgment of U.S. Human Rights Record


This is from CNSNews.

The United Nations can go to Hell.

They United Nations has zero credibility.

( – From police shootings of African-Americans to the failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the United States’ human rights record will be in the spotlight at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday.

A 26-strong multi-agency U.S. delegation will field questions from other members of the Geneva-based council, including communist Cuba, which has submitted queries covering torture, labor rights and poverty.

“How is the U.S. commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights compatible with the fact no prosecutions have been announced of those responsible for carrying out torture in the context of the so-called war against terrorism?” reads one of the questions Cuba prepared in advance.

A number of other countries will be asking the U.S. team to explain policy on issues including the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, ratification of the International Criminal Court’s founding statute, and the Feinstein report on the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation and detention programs.

Spain’s prepared questions relate to the controversies over police shootings in U.S. cities.

“Is the government preparing any education program for the police to prevent discrimination and violence against the Afro-American citizens by the public order forces?” it asks. “Are the president and the Congress going to appoint a special commission to investigate police actions against minorities, including Afro-American citizens?”

The exercise in Geneva is known as the universal periodic review (UPR), an examination supervised by the HRC which every U.N. member-state is expected to undergo every four years.

It involves a three-hour “interactive dialogue” among delegates, based on three reports – one prepared by the government under review, one by U.N. agencies, and one that summarizes submissions from non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

After the discussion a “troika” of randomly-selected countries compiles a document containing recommendations arising from the proceedings. The full HRC then “adopts” that document, and the country under review is expected either to accept or “note” each recommendation.

The troika selected for the UPR of the U.S. comprises Saudi Arabia – a country which the democracy watchdog Freedom House designates as “not free” – the Netherlands and Botswana.

The UPR was touted as one of the most important mechanisms designed for the HRC when the council was established in 2006 to replace its discredited predecessor, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

In practice, it has often disappointed human rights advocates. Regimes with poor rights records typically express support and solidarity for each other, while fending off criticism from democracies.

And when democracies are under review, rights-abusing regimes have used the opportunity as payback for criticism they frequently receive from the West.


When the U.S. had its first UPR, in 2010-11, critics of U.S. policies stacked the top of the speakers’ list, with Cuba, Venezuela and Iran in the top three positions. Russia, Nicaragua, North Korea, China and Libya were also high up the list.

Among recommendations arising out of that first UPR, Libya’s Gaddafi regime advised the U.S. to act against those responsible for gross violations of human rights in American prisons; Iran said Washington should send U.S. “war criminals” to the ICC for trial; and North Korea urged the U.S. to ban torture and punish law enforcement officials who use excessive force.

Venezuela said the U.S. must tackle climate change; Algeria said the U.S. must examine itself in the annual State Department report on human rights around the world; and Ecuador said the U.S. should repeal “discriminatory and racial laws” such as Arizona’s controversial immigration law, S.B. 1070.

In the end the U.S. accepted 171 recommendations out of a total of 242 from other member-states.

The delegation traveling to Geneva for Monday’s session comprises 25 officials from the Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, along with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.






This is from Breitbarts Big HollyWood.

This vapid twit needs to move to some third world Muslim sh*t hole.

Live as a woman under Islam’s rule, then if she is still alive come back and explain how misunderstood these thugs are.

I personally say Damn her as hundreds of our soldiers died to give her free speech and she disrespects them.


During an interview with The Daily Beast, actress Kristen Stewart indicated that terrorists at Guantanamo Bay are misunderstood and that joining the United States Armed Forces is the job of a simpleton.

Camp X-Ray is Stewart’s newest film that illustrates the life of a “simple” female soldier who receives orders as a prison guard to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Surrounded by jihadists, she bears witness to the apparent cruelty in which they live and befriends a suspected terrorist. She then questions her role in the U.S. military.

“All she want’s to think is ‘They did 9/11, they’re bad, f*ck that, I’m going to do my job and I’m going to do it well,’ But then she gets down there and just can’t accept it; she can’t conform to that,” she said.

Protagonist Amy Cole enlisted in the Army as an act of patriotism in the wake of 9/11. Stewart seemingly finds the standards of intelligence for joining the armed forces rather low.

“She’s simple, not very smart, and really socially inadequate—but a good person. So, if you can sign up, put a uniform on, and erase yourself, you don’t have to consider yourself anymore,” she said.

According to Stewart, judging the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is reportedly “f*cking evil” and “crazy,” because they are people, too.

It’s a ridiculous idea for you to think that you know anything for sure in life—other than to take care of your fellow people. Where the f*ck do you get off thinking otherwise? These two people couldn’t be from more different worlds and perspectives, and probably disagree fundamentally on most things, but there’s a through-line for all of us—and that’s what people forget, and that’s what makes people capable of doing terrible things to each other. What makes you different from any other person that walks the earth?

Camp X-Ray reminds people that “this thing” (GTMO) is still present because President Barack Obama didn’t close it down as he promised in 2009.

Stewart claimed she didn’t act in the film to make a political statement, but she conducted a thorough investigation into the detention center since it wasn’t relevant in the news, which she reportedly doesn’t watch.

I don’t want to talk about that sh*t at all. Trust me, I’m only asking for it. When it comes time to stand up and affect change, I’m not the type of person to shout from the rooftops. Just because you’re an actor and in the public eye, people think that’s how you must be. But there are other ways to do that. That’s not me.

When it comes to feminism, Stewart wants to silence her “overly-aggressive” peers who discredit other feminists by being too emotional. She apparently finds it embarrassing and wishes they would simply calm down.

“But that being said, it’s a really ridiculous thing to say you’re not a feminist,” she said.


Roberts vows to ‘shut down the Senate’ if Obama empties Gitmo

Leave a comment

This is from The Hill.

As much as I would to love seeing  Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) shut down the Senate I have a simple solution.

Get The SeaBees then let them dig a big pit behind  Gitmo line up the detainees and dispatch them with a.45 round to the head.

Make sure the bullets are dipped in pig’s blood the toss a carcass or two of the pigs in then bury them all together.

But sadly that will not happen so shut down the Senate if needed to stop moving the detainees to America.


TOPEKA, Kansas — Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) on Friday vowed to block all legislation in the Senate with a prolonged filibuster if President Obama tries to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the United States.

A day after Tea Party hero Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) campaigned with him in Wichita, Roberts threatened to wage a marathon talk session similar to the one Cruz held last year to protest the implementation of ObamaCare.

“I stopped him once from trying to send a Gitmo terrorist to Leavenworth. I shall do it again, I shall do it again and if he tries it again I will shut down the Senate,” Roberts said, referring to the military prison located sixty miles east of his campaign headquarters in Topeka where he spoke to campaign volunteers.

Roberts made a similar threat back in 2009, when Obama originally signaled he wanted to relocate detainees to the United States. At the time, the disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth, as well as a maximum-security prison in Obama’s home state of Illinois were being considered to house the prisoners.

Roberts told reporters that he would hold the Senate floor for hours on end if necessary to stop Obama.

“We’re going to bring 179 terrorists to the United States including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?” Roberts said, referring to the detainee accused of masterminding the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“Once you get control of the floor you just don’t leave it. Ted Cruz did that with regard to ObamaCare. If necessary, I’ll do it with terrorists,” he said.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who is traveling through the state this week on Roberts’s campaign bus, said he would join the filibuster. Roberts predicted he would have broad support from his colleagues.

“I will have help on this. I can see John McCain there and I can see Lindsey Graham there and I can see Kelly Ayotte there and I can see a whole bunch of other people there,” Roberts said.

Obama ordered the closure of the prison camp as one of his first acts as president, but the Congress overrode him by prohibiting the use of federal funds to transfer detainees.

Now the White House is considering going around Congress by using executive power to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo Bay, according to The Wall Street Journal. The president might also veto the annual defense authorization bill, which includes the ban on detainee transfers.

Republicans blasted the idea, warning it could have dangerous consequences.

“Why is the White House even discussing this as we battle a brutal enemy that has beheaded two Americans,” Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) said in a statement. “Bringing dangerous terrorists into the U.S. makes no sense and sends the wrong message to our enemies and allies.”

White House officials questioned the Journal report.

“We do not know what new press reports are referring to when they say the Administration is ‘drafting options’ intended to ‘override a congressional ban,’” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement.

Still, Hayden noted that the administration had “made clear many times” that it continued “to object to congressional restrictions” on detainee transfers.

“The president has been clear about the administration’s strategy with respect to Guantanamo Bay,” she continued. “To the greatest extent possible and consistent with our national security interests, detainees will be repatriated or resettled, or prosecuted in Federal courts or military commission proceedings.”

But the White House spokesperson also said would “call on members of both parties to work together to ensure that Congress lifts the remaining restrictions and enables the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.”

The escalating partisan fight over Guantanamo could imperil the chances of confirming a successor to Attorney General Eric Holder in the lame-duck session after the election.

The new attorney general would play a major role in any effort to try and convict suspected terrorists in civilian courts.

Holder announced in 2009 that Mohammed would face a civilian trial in New York for the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center.

A year and a half later, the Obama administration reversed itself and announced it would try Mohammed before a military commission in Cuba because of the congressional restriction on moving detainees to the United States. A defense lawyer working on the case told The New York Daily News earlier this year that the military trial may not reach a conclusion until after 2017.

The Top 8 White House Bergdahl Lies

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.




Joseph Miller is the pen name for a senior Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.

It’s been just over a week since Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was released in exchange for five senior Taliban leaders held in Guantanamo Bay, and so far the Obama administration is averaging nearly a lie a day. Here are the top eight administration claims, laid out and debunked in full.

Lie #1: Bergdahl was very sick

Bergdahl’s health was not rapidly deteriorating, as the administration claimed. Reports have leaked that the only medical problems Bergdahl is suffering from are “gum and skin disorders” associated with poor hygiene.

The video of Sgt. Bergdahl’s handover to American forces that was released by the Taliban shows Sgt. Bergdahl looking relatively healthy. In the tape, he is seen walking into the company of U.S. special operations forces and then climbing into the aircraft without assistance. The video also shows him lucid and communicating with his captors. We know from previous reporting that he was able to write down the letters “SF” with a question mark on paper once inside the helicopter, as a way of asking his rescuers if they were special forces. This proved that his fine motor skills were intact, and that he was aware of his surroundings.

It has also been reported that one of the few exchange between Bergdahl’s rescuers and his captors was a question about his health. The Taliban said he was not sick. Finally, reports from Landsthul Regional Medical Center in Germany state that Sgt. Bergdahl has been in stable condition.

Lie #2: The Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl

To further justify its decision not to inform Congress (in violation of the law), administration officials claimed that there was a threat to kill Bergdahl if details of the prisoner swap were released. But Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has stated that there is no credible information indicating that there was a threat to Berghdal’s life.

Lie #3: The administration informed Congress about the swap

Reports from Capitol Hill have informed us that the administration last discussed the possibility of a prisoner transfer with members of Congress several years ago. At that time, there was bipartisan and bicameral opposition to the idea. The law requires that the administration notify Congress 30 days prior to the release of any detainee from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The administration has admitted that it engaged in negotiations to secure the deal that set Bergdahl free for over a week prior to the swap. During that week, the administration never informed Congress — and only notified congressional leaders after the deal had been reached, after the detainees from Guantanamo were released, and after Berghdal was in American custody.

It appears that the administration chose to willfully violate the law by not informing Congress, as we now know that there was no credible threat to Bergdahl’s life, he wasn’t ill, and the administration was negotiating for over a week with his captors.

Lie #4: The U.S. didn’t negotiate with terrorists

The president’s national security adviser, Ambassador Susan Rice of Benghazi infamy, returned to the Sunday morning talk show circuit last weekend to defend the Obama administration’s decision to release the terrorists. When CNN’s Candy Crowley asked, “Point blank, did the U.S. negotiate with terrorists?” Ambassador Rice said no.

She claimed that by negotiating through the government of Qatar, the United States didn’t negotiate with terrorists. The problem is that the government of Qatar wasn’t holding Sgt. Bergdahl captive — the Haqqani Network was. The Obama administration officially designated the Haqqani Network a terrorist group in 2012.

Lie #5: Berghdal served with honor and distinction

On ABC’s “This Week,” Rice said that Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” By all accounts his service was not honorable, but was in fact distinct: Bergdahl has the distinction of being the only American soldier to desert his post in Afghanistan and walk into the arms of the enemy.

Statements about him being a traitor, however, are premature. There is not yet a clear indication as to why he deserted his post, or if he aided the enemy. Claims that he trained the Taliban in explosives are hard to believe, because as a private first class infantryman in the Army, Bergdahl would have had little to no explosives training other than basic familiarization, which every soldier receives.

But there is plenty of reason to be plenty suspicious. It’s been said that Bergdahl mailed home his personal items two weeks before he walked off his post — something completely abnormal in a combat zone. It has also been said that he left behind his weapon, body armor and helmet, only taking a compass with him. Additionally, reports in the press stated that Afghan villagers have said Bergdahl wandered around asking to meet with Taliban.

Only time will tell if these claims are true, but it is becoming pretty clear based on the testimony of his former platoon mates, and the Army’s preliminary investigation into the incident, that Bergdahl did in fact desert his post.


Lie #6: The release of the terrorists poses little to no risk to the U.S.

Just days after being released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba family members of one of the five detainees released by the United States told NBC news that the former Taliban commander, Mullah Norullah Nori, planned to return to the fight in Afghanistan. Nori is a former Taliban Provincial Governor and is said to be responsible for the Shia Muslim genocide in Western Afghanistan prior to 9/11. The attacks he ordered against his own countrymen resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians who were slaughtered for practicing a different form of Islam than the Taliban.

Lie #7: The five terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay will be under U.S. monitoring

U.S. officials have publicly stated that the United States will be actively monitoring the released terrorists while they remain in Qatar for one year. The administration claimed that the terrorists would remain in Qatari custody for at least one year before being permitted to travel outside that country. Qatari government officials, however, said that the deal that was reached did not allow for U.S. monitoring of the detainees, and that they would be free to move about the country while they remained in Qatar.

The Qataris did say that they would be monitoring the detainees while they remained as guests in their country. This is not comforting, though, because Qatar has failed to do so at least twice in the past — despite guarantees made to the U.S. government.

In 1996, the United States believed that Qatari intelligence officials were monitoring the movements of Khalid Sheik Mohammad while he was in their country. He was able to evade their monitoring efforts and went on to mastermind the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Another terrorist the Qataris were supposed to be watching after his release from Guantanamo Bay Cuba, Jarallah al-Marri, also managed to leave Qatar and was arrested in London in 2009.

Lie #8: This was the “last, best chance” to bring Bergdahl home

I don’t know what crystal ball the administration was using to make this claim, but there is no indication that this is true.

To date, the Taliban have failed to engage in any meaningful peace talks with the U.S. or the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban have said that they will not negotiate as long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan. With the U.S. and her coalition allies scheduled to leave Afghanistan at the end of this year, it is quite plausible that resolving the status of Bergdahl and the five terrorists that were just released from Guantanamo Bay could have helped secure a larger peace agreement. That is pure speculation, but is no more speculative than the administration’s claim that this was the last, best chance to secure Bergdahl’s release. What is their speculation based on?

Bergdahl was release May 31. In the days since, the administration has pushed the narrative that he was ill; his life was threatened; Congress was informed; this was not a negotiation with terrorists; he served with honor and distinction; the released Taliban leaders are not a threat; the Gitmo Five will be monitored by the U.S.; and this was the “last, best chance” to bring Bergdahl home. Every single one of these statements has been shown to be false — to be a lie.

Read more:

The 8 Stupidest Arguments Being Made About Obama’s Bergdahl Swap


This is from The Federalist.

The left is trying to keep their Lying King propped up.

They want to try to fill up Obama’s empty suit.

Despite President Obama’s claim Thursday that he’s “never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington,” the administration and its fans are struggling to tamp down widespread criticism of the deal that traded one soldier — who fellow infantrymen say deserted them — with five top Taliban prisoners held at the U.S. prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

It’s a fair bet, given President Obama’s triumphant announcement in the Rose Garden featuring Bowe Bergdahl’s parents, that those in his inner circle severely miscalculated how such a presentation would go over with Americans. As they scramble to respond, they’ve made some stupid arguments in response to criticism. And critics have made some stupid arguments, too. Here are eight of the worst:

1) Critics are saying Bergdahl should have been left behind

Here’s how one prominent liberal put it:

This would be a great argument to make against critics of the swap if this was what they were saying. But they’re not. They may be saying we paid too high a price. They may be saying we went about it the wrong way, legally speaking. They may be saying it was stupid to tell Americans, he was heroic when his colleagues say he wasn’t. They may be saying it sets a bad precedent that encourages people to kidnap Americans. They may be making a thousand other criticisms, and still not be arguing he should have been left behind.

Imagine it this way. Let’s say your newly assigned carpool partner shows up to pick you up and he’s drunk as a skunk, telling you to get in the car and that everything’s fine. Oh, and that he decided you’re going to pay for gas 100% of the time and a surcharge for repairs. If you decline to agree with him, this doesn’t mean that you hate carpooling. It just means you think he’s not the carpool partner for you. And how he’s going about things could cause serious problems.

2) People who called for his release but are now critical are flip-flopping hypocrites!

So VoxGawker and Slate all ran nearly identical pieces about people who had called on Obama to release Bergdahl but then got mad when he did it. And not just any people. These people include such luminaries as “lemontree46,” “Shannon //(*_~)\\,” and “JazzyVajazzleds.” (And no, I did not make any of those names up.) I mean, not that pointing out tweets from random people isn’t what explanatory journalism was invented for, but the entire argument is lame.

I don’t typically quote John Maynard Keynes but remember his line about changing positions? He said, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” If Shannon-forward-slash-forward-slash-open-parentheses-asterisk-underscore-tilde-closed-parentheses-back-slash-back-slash thought — during the times no one was breaking their non-disclosure agreement to reveal eye-witness testimony about Bergdahl’s behavior — that this was a P.O.W. situation and then found out after the Rose Garden ceremony that it was much more complicated, should she have refused to change her mind? Really?

3) The motives of Bergdahl’s fellow infantry are suspect

Perhaps the single biggest reason the White House spin on the Bergdahl trade didn’t hold up was because almost immediately people who knew him in Afghanistan started talking about what they knew about his disappearance. While these details had been kept under wraps via a non-disclosure agreement, the rush to paint him as a homecoming hero was too much for many of them. Whether they viewed the non-disclosure agreement as no longer operationally important, or because they hadn’t signed one to begin with, some even started appearing on national news to give their side of the story.

The first attempt to fight this was to do something very unusual — talk about a public relations firm that had helped coordinate such appearances. Now, the fact of the matter is that public relations firms coordinate pretty much everything you see on television. But usually you don’t hear about it. Did the New York Times report, when it covered birth control activist Sandra Fluke, that she was represented by the firm of former White House communications director Anita Dunn? Of course not. How much coverage was given the fact that Texas State Senator Wendy Davis’ late-term abortion filibuster was a public relations campaign? I think I saw one blog item.

What about the award-winning public relations campaign Planned Parenthood planned against the Komen Foundation? Not only were Planned Parenthood’s public relations firms not mentioned in stories about the campaign, the media actually was blatantly one-sided in which group it supported and which group it condemned in the contest between a breast health charity and the country’s largest abortion provider.

I could go on. But only in this case did we learn about this fact behind most major news stories. That attempt to discredit soldiers didn’t work, though, so White House aides told NBC’s Chuck Todd that they didn’t expect soldiers to “swift boat” Bergdahl. That was a reference to what happened when John Kerry ran for president by emphasizing his military service. The only problem was that those “swift boat” veterans who served with him had a different view. Democrats believed these attacks on John Kerry were unfair. An Obama administration official tweeted out his thoughts about the matter this week:

Just no. Speculating that the men who did not desert were “psychopaths” is just idiotic. Particularly since even if Bergdahl had problems with soldiers or leadership, that wouldn’t make him even remotely unique in the Army. What did make his situation unique was that he didn’t work through approved channels for resolving those issues without putting people in danger.

And now the New York Times is trying to make the claim that Bergdahl’s unit was “as much to blame” for his disappearance as he was. Sigh.

4) It doesn’t matter that Bergdahl was a deserter

This argument posits that since Bergdahl hasn’t yet been court-martialed, we can’t even consider the circumstances of his disappearance. While it is extremely important that Bergdahl be fairly tried for what other soldiers have accused him of, it’s not true that the Commander-in-Chief would be imprudent to consider these details in either his dealings with his terrorist captors or in his public presentation regarding the trade. Dan McLaughlin says it well:

The idea that the facts of Bergdahl’s disappearance could simply be wished away or pretended not to exist, simply because no court-martial had been convened, is ridiculous and juvenile The military owed Bowe Bergdahl its promise to try to rescue him, even if he walked away. The nation did not owe him an agreement to compromise national security by surrendering five high-value prisoners without asking what we were getting in return.

5) Concerns that this sets a bad precedent or will lead to more hostage taking are overblown

Liberal pundits pooh-poohed the idea that global enemies would now be more inclined to try to secure a soldier as a hostage.

Now, we can hope that the circumstances of this exchange will have no negative effect on Americans’ safety, but it’s also true that it suggests nabbing yourself a soldier might be in your best strategic interest. Time magazine reported:

“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking by telephone on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

Now, it’s also true that this exchange might raise the value of keeping a hostage alive as opposed to beheading him for propaganda purposes. But the point remains that Islamist foes aren’t stupid and can respond to new information as well.

6) The Taliban commanders we released weren’t that big a threat

Remember when Rolling Stone was genuinely counter-cultural as opposed to being a mouthpiece for the U.S. president? Well, those days are long gone. Rolling Stone published a laughable piece headlined “Four Myths About the Bowe Bergdahl Swap That Must Be Destroyed.” It might have better been headlined “Four White House Talking Points We Really Really Really Hope You’ll Swallow.” Anyway, one of them was:

MYTH: These five Taliban are the hardest of the hardcore

Now, maybe you’re into groups that kill girls for the crime of going to school. I don’t know. But, as Robert Tracinski writes, this was a Taliban Dream Team: “These were top officials in the Taliban regime: a provincial governor, a deputy defense minister, a deputy intelligence minister, a top arms smuggler, and a top Taliban military commander. Two of them are wanted by the United Nations for war crimes committed against Afghanistan’s Shiites.” He goes on, in response to a Politico editor’s suggestion that they couldn’t be that bad if they didn’t have superpowers:

Well, no, they don’t have superpowers. All they have is the influence and connections to get a gang of brutes together, and the absence of any of the normal vestiges of human conscience that would cause them to shrink from atrocities like: bombing schools because they let girls play sportsshooting a girl in the head; because she stands up for her right to be educated; horribly mutilating women to punish them for disobedience in their roles as marital slaves; dragging a 7-year-old out of the yard where he is playing and hanging him from a tree because his grandfather spoke out against the Taliban.

7) Bergdahl’s family is suspect

Now let’s look at some of the weak arguments coming from conservative critics. One prominent area of discussion they’re talking about is Bergdahl’s family. Namely his dad. They’re upset that he uttered an Arabic greeting at the White House, wrote — and deleted — severely anti-American tweets, and grew a long beard to show his son’s captors some sympathy. The thing is that it just doesn’t matter. He’s an American citizen with the freedom to do what he wants, particularly when it comes to facial hair! Also, he is a private citizen who did not swear any oaths to the country or otherwise have any responsibility for sensitive national security issues. The president does. Bergdahl swore an oath. These are the relevant actors.

8) Reports that Bergdahl was sympathetic to his captors or declared Jihad prove he should be considered a traitor

More recently, media outlets reported on intelligence briefings that suggested Bergdahl had, at some point, converted to Islam and declared Jihad.

The claim is that after prolonged captivity, which may have included torture, brainwashing or manipulation, Bergdahl may have converted. No one knows what his captors did to him and it’s not relevant to the matter at hand in any case. What is relevant is how Bergdahl behaved leading up to his capture and immediately following. Many of the men he served with are worried that he gave his captors information that hurt their work. Whether that’s true or not is relevant. What happened after prolonged captivity is far less important.

Rand Paul: Let’s trade Dems, not Taliban

Leave a comment

This is from The Politico.

I have to say Rand Paul sometimes swerves into a good line or two.

I will add the other two names Rand may have thought of, but could not say Barack and Michelle Obama.



FORT WORTH, Texas — Sen. Rand Paul on Friday likened Democrats to the recently released Taliban detainees at Guantánamo Bay in a speech here at the Texas GOP convention.

“Mr. President, you love to trade people,” the Kentucky Republican and likely 2016 contender said to laughs, a reference to the deal made for the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.


“Why don’t we set up a trade? But this time, instead of five Taliban, how about five Democrats? I’m thinking John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, couldn’t we send them to Mexico?”

He nodded to a Marine being detained in Mexico before making his proposal.

Paul’s suggestion came after he criticized the deal struck to bring back Bergdahl, who had been held captive by the Taliban for five years and was freed in exchange for the five prisoners.

“I don’t know about y’all, but I’ve been a little bit annoyed with the president,” Paul said. “Releasing five Taliban senior officials is not only against the law, it’s illegal and wrong and he should never have done it.”

Asked about his comments in a news conference after the speech, Paul replied, “It was a joke. Except for Nancy Pelosi, I was serious about her.”

When pressed, he added: “Well, I mean, it’s humor, and I hope there’s room for humor. I thought it was funny. It was meant to be humorous.”

Turning more serious, Paul said some circumstances could allow for a “reasonable swap” — such as if the Taliban were “laying down arms” and planned to become “part of democratic policy in Afghanistan.”

But at this stage, he said, he’s uncomfortable with the national security and legal implications of the deal.

Read more:

US steps up efforts to break Guantánamo hunger strike


This is from The U.K.Daily Guardian.

I say let these goat humping morons die.

Then shove a pork bone in their mouths and burn their

 stinking bodies.

If you want to break the strike with these animals watching

rub some bacon on some rounds.

Then tell them if they do not eat they will be shot with the

pork covered bullets.

But we know this regime does not have the gonads to do this.


Shaker Aamer, last British resident held in camp, tells of harsh regime to break strikers’ resistance

Increasingly brutal tactics are being used in an attempt to break the hunger strike by detainees at Guantánamo Bay, according to fresh testimony from the last British resident still held in the camp.

Shaker Aamer claims that the US authorities are systematically making the regime more hardline to try to defuse the strike, which now involves almost two-thirds of the detainees. Techniques include making cells “freezing cold” to accentuate the discomfort of those on hunger strike and the introduction of “metal-tipped” feeding tubes, which Aamer said were forced into inmates’ stomachs twice a day and caused detainees to vomit over themselves.

The 46-year-old from London tells of one detainee who was admitted to hospital 10 days ago after a nurse had pushed the tube into his lungs rather than his stomach, causing him later to cough up blood. Aamer also alleges that some nurses at Guantánamo Bay are refusing to wear their name tags in order to prevent detainees registering abuse complaints against staff.

Speaking last week from the camp in Cuba, exactly four months after he joined the hunger strike, Aamer said: “The administration is getting ever more angry and doing everything they can to break our hunger strike. Honestly, I wish I was dead.”

The momentum behind efforts to release Aamer – who has spent more than 11 years without trial inside the camp – mounted sharply last week with David Cameron raising the issue directly with the US president, Barack Obama, during the G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

On Wednesday, in a response to a parliamentary question about what had been discussed by the two leaders, Cameron revealed that his next step would be to write to Obama about the “specifics of the case and everything that we can do to expedite it”. He added: “Clearly, President Obama wants to make progress on this issue and we should help him in every way that we can with respect to this individual.”

The prime minister’s comments are the most positive indication to date that Aamer will eventually be freed – he has been cleared for release twice since 2007.

Clive Stafford Smith, the director of the legal charity Reprieve, who passed a transcript of his conversation with Aamer to the Observer, said: “These gruesome new details show just how bad things are in Guantánamo. The whole thing is at breaking point. Clearly the US military is under enormous pressure and doing everything it can to hurt the men and break the hunger strike.”

Although the military initially denied that there was a hunger strike inside Guantanámo, it now concedes that, of the 166 detainees, 104 are on hunger strike and 44 are being force-fed.

Aamer also documents his declining health and how the camp’s regime deliberately inflates the weight of detainees on hunger strike. Aamer, who has permission to live in the UK indefinitely because his wife is a British national, said: “They said I was 160lb, but I was 154lb a few days ago. Unless there has been a miracle, my weight has not gone up without eating. But they cheat by adding shackles and sometimes even pressing down as they do it to add to your weight.

“If you have a medical standard for when a detainee should be force-fed for his own health, then force-feed him when it can still save his health. Don’t wait until his body is so harmed by the lack of food that all you are protecting is the US military – from the harm of a prisoner dying for a principle.”

Aamer describes his daily diet at Guantánamo as a cup of tea or two each day with a low-calorie sweetener and occasionally an Ocean Spray powder mix that has 10 calories – enough to give an energy boost.


Feinstein: How Bout’ Bringing GITMO Detainees to the United States?

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Bring the detainees to Feinstein,Pelosi and Reeds district.

Also place them any where on the left coast.

It’s happening again. One of the Senate’s leading Democrats, Senator Diane Feinsteinhas been pushing to bring GITMO detainees into the United States and has hired the Government Accountability Office to look into how it can happen. This is a proposal that failed during the first Obama term due to public outrage and a logistical nightmare, yet it’s coming up again as an option.

The Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee commissioned a federal report to identify prison facilities in the U.S. that are suitable for housing Guantanamo detainees, concluding the option is viable — despite congressional opposition to such a plan when the Obama administration proposed it.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s renewed interest in the proposal first came to light Wednesday after Fox News turned up an internal Government Accountability Office document that refers to “Source of Work: Ms. Dianne Feinstein, Chair, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate” and lists the “Gist of Work” as an investigation into whether domestic facilities could house the approximately 170 detainees remaining at the controversial facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Two hours after Fox News’ inquiry about the report, Feinstein’s office posted the report online and released a statement confirming that the California senator thinks the Obama administration’s controversial plan to relocate detainees to the United States is a viable option.

“This report demonstrates that if the political will exists, we could finally close Guantanamo without imperiling our national security,” Feinstein said. “The GAO report makes clear that numerous prisons exist inside the United States — operated by both the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice—capable of holding the 166 detainees who remain at Guantanamo in an environment that meets the security requirements.”

I assume Ms. Feinstein would be perfectly happy to welcome GITMO detainees to her district. One of President Obama’s first moves after being inaugurated in January 2009 was signing an executive order requiring the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison within one year. Congress countered the order by blocking funding for the transfer of prisoners and therefore, the prison is still open today. Not to mention, constituents didn’t want GITMO detainees transferred into their backyards.

Although the transfer of GITMO detainees has been described by Feinstein as “viable”  based on the findings in the report, the report doesn”t address key issues required to make the transfers a reality.

Accordingly, this report describes (1) current Guantánamo Bay detention facilities and infrastructure; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) corrections facilities in the United States, and factors to be considered if they were used to hold Guantánamo Bay detainees; and (3) Department of Justice (DOJ) corrections facilities in the United States that hold individuals charged with or convicted of terrorism-related crimes, and factors to be considered if they were used to hold Guantánamo Bay detainees. We are also issuing a classified version of this report in November 2012. That version includes an additional appendix, which provides a discussion of Guantánamo Bay facilities used for classified operations that would need to be considered if the detainees were transferred to facilities in the United States.

The scope of our work was to provide a descriptive review of the detention facilities and infrastructure at Guantánamo Bay as well as existing corrections facilities in the United States. Hence, our review did not include an evaluation of whether specific U.S. facilities would be suitable for holding Guantánamo Bay detainees, nor did we address legal factors that are still being adjudicated such as detainee habeas corpus rights, and right to counsel. In addition we are not making recommendations in this report.

Back in October, the Department of Justice announced plans to purchase an Illinois prison once considered a new home for GITMO prisoners.

The Justice Department said Tuesday that it is buying a prison in Illinois from the state for $165 million, defying Republican lawmakers who have sought to block the purchase of the facility, earlier slated to be the new home of Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

Attorney General Eric Holder, in a letter to lawmakers, reiterated that the prison wouldn’t be used to house Guantanamo detainees, noting the law prohibits transferring inmates from the prison in Cuba to the U.S. He said the facility would provide badly needed high-security prison space, alleviating overcrowding. The maximum-security prison was built in 2001 and was designed for 1,600 inmates but has remained mostly unused.

House Republicans offered two criticisms of purchasing the Thomson, Ill., prison, saying it could be a way of reviving the plan to close Guantanamo and could have political motivations.Illinois is President Barack Obama’s home state and Thomson is near the border with Iowa, a contested state in the November elections.

Attorney General Eric Holder has been a strong advocate for the closure of GITMO and for holding terrorist trials in civilian court rather than in military tribunals.


%d bloggers like this: