Does putting an arsonist into prison only create more arsonists? What about car jackers? Then why does detention for terrorists only propel them to commit terrorism upon their release? It’s an absurd proclamation, yet it is exactly what the Washington Post has spent the past weekend arguing on their front page.

The story regards Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti captured on the Afghanistan battlefield in 2002, held in Guantanamo until 2005. He was eventually released to Kuwait, but crossed into Iraq and detonated an explosive-laden truck on Easter Sunday, 2008, that killed 13 Iraqi soldiers and wounded 42 others. Thus, the argument goes, recidivist detainees are created by us.

Sunday, February 22, 2009; A01
From Captive To Suicide Bomber;
Accused of Being Little More Than a Low-Level Taliban Fighter, Abdallah al-Ajmi Was Held by the U.S. for Nearly Four Years. After His Release, He Blew Up an Iraqi Army Outpost. Did Guantanamo Propel Him to Do It?

Monday, February 23, 2009; A01
A ‘Ticking Time Bomb’ Goes Off
When Abdallah Al-Ajmi Returned to Kuwait After Nearly Four Years at Guantanamo, His Family Tried to Get Him to Move On. But He Didn’t Want to Let Go.

Both reports are filled with inaccuracies, misnomers and outright falsehoods.

They are also filled with apologies for terrorism, such as, my favorite, a defense that in Afghanistan Al-Ajmi “fired his weapon only one time…” Or, “Before he went to Afghanistan, he was a normal teenager…” So “normal,” that he hung out at firebrand mosques, twice attempted to follow the calling of Jihad, first in January 2001 to try to fight Russians in Chechnya. Then again in March 2001 to try to fight the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. This “normal teenager” thus twice tried to join Jihad months before the world had heard of 9-11. Thank heavens your local neighborhood kids aren’t so “normal.”

There’s, next, the misnomer “that the United States shouldn’t be holding people incommunicado and that even terrorism suspects should have the right to defend themselves.”

“But there is also a view in some quarters of the U.S. government that cases such as Ajmi’s are the inevitable result of locking up 779 foreigners in an austere military prison, without access to courts or consular representation, and subjecting them to interrogation techniques that detainees say amount to torture.”

The above paragraph is falsehood after falsehood. The fact that of the 800 original detainees there are only 200 remaining in Guantanamo proves that they are not held indefinitely or incommunicado. Every single detainee is given representation and military trials (parole hearings basically). Because it is the military establishment that conducts these — and not our civil law system — the Washington Post feels it can mislead its readers through a technicality into thinking that these detainees are just held in secret forever, throw away the key, with no due process. It’s a lie.

It lacks all context as well. For example, how many Axis POWs were held indefinitely during the Second World War, and in Midwestern work camps no less? The answer: 400,000 German and Italian POWs held in some 500 U.S. work camps. Note: work camp, and no trials, no representation, no parole. The Second World War detainees had even fewer civil rights than our War on Terror detainees.

From this same context, then, U.S. officials had had no idea when the Second World War would end, so was their detention of Germans and Italians likewise abuse or inhumane or torture? This is an important point because the critics demand POW status for detainees, even while the detainees are in fact, right now, being treated exactly as POWs! What’s in a name? It’s the acts that matter. We may not call them POWs, but in fact they are exactly that because we are treating them as such (I would argue against our better judgment).

Regarding representation, there are multi-million dollar law firms lining up to provide Guantanamo detainees with free representation. Try getting such a deal in Kuwait should you pick up an AK and combat the government.

The allegations of torture are pure libel and slander, too. Period. Guantanamo is a military facility, not CIA. The U.S. military has never even waterboarded an individual (torture debatable), as the CIA was the institution that did (not at Guantanamo, and only to three senior members of al Qaeda, all before 2003, and all producing actionable intelligence).

And so we see the watering down, no pun intended, of the definition of torture. Thus, barking dogs (often used in civilian prisons), or disincentives to detainees who injure the prison guards are labeled by the critics as torture.

The bleeding hearts all cite Guantanamo treatment even as they are totally ignorant of our civilian penitentiary system. For example, this related Washington Post article cites the solitary confinement of (only the most dangerous) detainees as harsh or abusive.

“Prisoners in Camp 6 and the highly secret Camp 7 — which holds such high-value detainees as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — can be held in windowless cells for up to 22 hours a day.”

The article also complains about forced-feeding of detainees starving themselves, even though were the military to take no action and allow the detainee to die while in their care they would be legitimately vilified for it.

Ironically, those who demand the closure of Guantanamo offer as an alternative federal facilities such as Supermax in Colorado, which houses such notorious individuals as the 1993 WTC bomber (Ramzi Yousef), and the Unibomber (Theodore Kaczynski), and prior to his execution, Tim McVeigh, the 1995 Oklahoma City bomber.

This is my favorite aspect to the anti-Guantanamo champions: they don’t realize that the worst of the worst at Supermax are isolated in windowless cells for 23 hours a day! Indeed, a 1999 Justice department report found “that more than 30 states are operating a Supermax-type facility with 23-hours-a-day lockdown and long-term isolation.”

Thus, by this “isolation” standard our CIVILIAN prison system is less humane than Guantanamo. But this should be no surprise, as it rivals even European models. The deputy head of Brussels’ federal police anti-terrorism unit praised Guantanamo in 2006. And from descriptions of Guantanamo officials including the commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, former JAG officers (Kyndra Rotunda), and retired high-ranking military visitors, the detainees enjoy treatments better than in most civilian prison models.

Indeed, the only persons being tortured at Guantanamo are the prison guards. A 2006 Pentagon report found some 440 separate attacks on guards by detainees including using “broken toilet parts, utensils, radios and even a bloody lizard tail into makeshift weapons.”

But these truths are not known to the vast majority of the American public because the media machine has its agenda. That agenda includes painting Guantanamo as something it isn’t, no matter how dangerous that agenda is to the next innocent victims of recidivist detainees. Last time it was in Iraq, perhaps next time it will be within the U.S.

I’ve been meaning to post these podcasts of interviews from Dennis Miller’s and G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show with two former military officers who served at Guantanamo — JAG officer Maj. Kyndra Rotunda (here (or here), & here) and Col. Gordon Cucullu (here).

Maj. Rotunda-Miller is author of Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials. (I’ve read it, and it is likewise eye-opening). Maj. Rotunda’s arguments are very persuasive and she notes what a legal minefield Obama is stepping in with his plans to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

Col. Cucullu is author of Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths. It’s on my list to read.

The interviews are truly educating, and run contrary to just about everything you’ve heard about Guantanamo Bay from our mainstream media. Be sure to check them out.

A few years ago and without merit, people started claiming torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Among the citations was a charge by the International Committee of the Red Cross, who cleverly worded their accusation as “tantamount to torture.” In her book Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trails, former JAG officer Maj. Kyndra Rotunda-Miller explained that to justify this curious definition the Red Cross applied to the U.S. treaties that it has never actually ratified:

The allegation is a strange one because the ICRC never clearly defined what it meant by “tantamount to torture.” The ICRC stopped short of claiming torture, but clearly fabricated their charge for high immediate impact. Beyond the vagueness of the charge, it was inconsistent too. If the ICRC believed that the conditions were deplorable, why did they raise menial issues like speeding up the mail and purchasing checker board games for detainees? Why did the ICRC ask for more skittles candy and softer soccer balls if they really believed detainees were being tortured?

Not only does the ICRC inaccurately interpret Geneva conventions, but it relies on provisions that the US has never approved. For example, the ICRC states as law Protocol 1 — proposed in 1977 but never ratified by the United States, Protocol 1 extends POW protections to persons who do not qualify to be POWs. The United States follows the Third Geneva Convention, which only gives POW protections to people who qualify — legal combatants who wear uniforms and follow the laws of war. Otherwise why would the US military or any other legitimate military bother to follow the laws of war? Why would they not simply adopt less risky terrorist tactics? The ICRC argues that 150 countries have ratified Protocol 1. Curiously, however, countries experienced with terrorism [Israel, the U.K.] have either refused to ratify the protocol or have done so with several caveats.

In other words the charge is baloney. Maj. Rotunda-Miller adds that other critics mistakenly identify waterboarding, but she retorts that the waterboarding was conducted by the CIA, not the military, on three high-ranking members of al Qaeda (Khalid Mohammed, the 9-11 mastermind, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim Nashiri), and not at Guantanamo (which thus destroys the argument that torture occurs at Guantanamo.

That’s some history, and perhaps a little too deep. But I wanted to set that up before highlighting this Washington Post article.

The Guantanamo critics are back, but this time they’re charging that Guantanamo officials are too lenient! Security conditions are so lax at Guantanamo (and a far, far cry from the accusatory harsh conditions the antiwar left) that detainees were able to commit suicide with relative ease.

[Wash. Post] Contained in more than 3,000 pages of military investigative documents, medical records, autopsies, and statements from guards and detainees is a rare view inside the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and one of the worst episodes of its six-year history. The documents from the NCIS investigation, which will be released under the Freedom of Information Act, were obtained yesterday by The Washington Post.

They make clear that that [Ali Abdullah Ahmed Naser al-Sullami] Sullami, along with Saudis Yasser Talal al-Zahrani, 22, and Mana Shaman Allabard al-Tabi, 32, carefully planned their suicides so that they would be able to prepare and carry them out without their guards taking notice. Investigators and military officials believe, according to the documents, that other detainees were aware that the suicides were about to happen and at one point chanted a song called “Kill Them All” — used by al-Qaeda and the Taliban after killing Americans — possibly to mask the sounds of death on the cellblock.

Investigators found that guards had become lax on certain rules because commanders wanted to reward the more compliant detainees, giving them extra T-shirts, blankets and towels. Detainees were allowed to hang such items to dry, or to provide privacy while using the toilet, but were not supposed to be able to obscure their cells while sleeping.

Guards told officials that it was not unusual to see blankets hanging in the cells and that they did not think twice when they passed several cells on the night of June 9, 2006, with blankets strung through the wire mesh. Authorities believe the men probably hanged themselves around 10 p.m., but they were not discovered until shortly after midnight on June 10.

Amazing. The critics can’t make up their mind. “They’re torturing… no wait, they’re too easy!”

This politically correct atmosphere is just what former JAG Maj. Kyndra Rotunda-Miller talked about.

[Maj. Rotunda-Miller] Detainees at Guantánamo Bay will sometimes throw urine, or spit upon, the military prison guards.

The reason that detainees continue behaving badly is because the Army does not have a disciplinary system to hold them accountable for crimes they commit while detained. There is no disciplinary system in Guantánamo, except for prison guards guarding the detainees.

However under the Third Geneva Convention (article 39, chapter 6) an entire chapter is devoted to camp discipline. “The prime purpose of measures of discipline is to ensure that the prisoner of war remains in the hands of the detaining power, so that he can neither do harm to that power within the camp, nor by escaping being able to take up arms again. It must not be forgotten that his life has been spared only on the condition that he is no longer in danger to the enemy.” Under the Geneva conventions, detainees are even required to salute the detaining Powers. But this never happens at Guantánamo Bay.

Detainees who break the rules under the Geneva conventions are subject to discipline the US has a right to bring detainees to trial and sentenced them for crimes committed against US prison guards at Guantánamo Bay. Under the Geneva conventions, the US could apply different disciplinary sanctions including fines, a limitation of privileges, duties that cause fatigue, and confinement. But this never happens at Guantánamo Bay.

Some detainees monitor guards and doctors, and make weapons. Detainees are resourceful. They have used [for weapons] springs from the faucets, broken light bulbs, and used fan blades as weapons. The incidents [had] risen to eight per day. In one year, detainees stacked victims with homemade knives 90 times, including cutting the doctor administering aid. Now, doctors wear body armor when you treat detainees. Detainees have faked suicide and attack the prison guards in Guantánamo Bay [who came into the cell to investigate]. In 2006, one detainee used sheets attached to the ceiling. A guard thought the detainee was attempting to commit suicide and called for assistance. When prison guards entered the cell, and countered a slick floor from feces, urine and soapy water that calls them to fall. The detainees then attacked the guards.

Once the commander of Guantánamo Bay, Admiral Harry Harris, found prescription pills in the binding of a Koran. The guards did not find this because the military for bids them from touching detainees Koran’s.

It’s likely that the incidents above could be contained in the report that the Washington Post published today, but it’s obvious in failing to mention the attacks, among other things, that the media bears much of the responsibility for the lax atmosphere at Guantanamo.

If there’s torture going on at Guantanamo, it’s the detainees torturing our military guards.

One of my favorite quotes retorting the “We can’t drill our way out” of our energy problems came from Dennis Miller a few weeks ago, who retorted, “We can’t ceiling fan our way out of it either.”

In principle, I’m all for anyone who thinks they have a solution or who thinks we should diversify our energy sources. But like it or not nuclear, oil and coal (all the things Democrats block) offer the most bang for the buck, especially nuclear.

Take, for example, oil magnate T. Boone Pickens’ suggestion that our Midwest could become the “Saudi Arabia” of wind power and “20% of America’s electricity can come from wind.” Sounds great, and Mr. Pickens is putting a lot of money into his project.

But that’s where the pie in the sky ends.

First political problem (the usual one): the environmental extremists will block any serious attempt to create a massive wind farm project. Kills birds.

[Heartland Institute] Between four and five million birds are killed every year in collisions with stationary, generally solitary, communications towers. One can conservatively estimate that three times as many wind turbines will cause three times as many bird deaths: between 12 and 15 million.

A wind turbine with long, rotating blades (regardless of whether those blades have been slowed) clearly will kill more birds than a smaller, stationary communications tower. A 295-foot tall wind turbine can be viewed as a “communications tower” with an additional bird-killing surface area of 21,113 square feet. That is an area almost half the size of a football field.

Catalogue that in your file labeled, “Bet you didn’t know wind farms were more environmentally damaging than drilling in ANWR.”

Next problem (as stated above): No bang for the buck, or, “Damn, that’s a lot of windmills.”

[William Tucker, National Review {$}] Pound for pound, coal contains twice as much energy as wood, and gasoline and natural gas contain four times as much. The Industrial Revolution became possible only when these denser forms of solar energy were developed.

Now, as we begin to run up against the natural limits of fossil fuels, it is important to consider the energy density of anything we might use in their place. Wind, water, biofuels, and the direct use of sunlight are anywhere from 5 to 50 times more dilute than fossil fuels. There is only one way to compensate for their low density, and that is to consume huge amounts of land in gathering them.

This is the Achilles heel of every form of “alternative energy.” When first introduced in the 1970s, alternative energy came with the slogan “Small is beautiful.” Prophets such as Amory Lovins, David Brower, and Lester Brown pictured a post-industrial world of backyard windmills, rooftop solar collects, and organic gardens where small plots would be set aside for biofuels that would run hyper-efficient cars. Self-sufficiency was the theme. It all sounded charming and romantic.

The reality has been anything but. We now use one-quarter of America’s corn crop for biofuels in order to replace less than 4 percent of our oil. GreenFuel Technologies, a Massachusetts startup, has a plan to grow photosynthesizing algae that will consume the carbon emissions from coal plants, and can be turned into biodiesel to run cars. It sounds like a great idea, except that the pools required for gathering sunlight to convert 40 percent of the exhausts from a single power plant will occupy 15 square miles.

Third problem: N.I.M.B.Y. (Not in my back yard)

[Heartland Institute] The Department of Energy’s “Wind Energy Initiative” calls for obtaining 5 percent of our nation’s electricity from wind turbines by the year 2020. To meet that goal will require the planting of more than 132,000 new wind turbines—a figure three times greater than the number of existing communication towers in the U.S.

Remember, the 132,000 windmills estimate comes from a 5% plan. So, trying to get 20% as Pickens suggests would logically require four times that 132,000 windmill figure.

Continues Tucker:

A standard wind farm built to generate 1,000 MW — the capacity of an average coal or nuclear plant — would occupy about 125 square miles. [T. Boone] Pickens wants to space his windmills a little wider — five to the square mile instead of eight — so for his 4,000 MW he will need 800 square miles.

But that 4,000 MW is only the “nameplate capacity.” Because wind blows so irregularly, even the best wind farms now generate electricity at only 30 percent of their theoretical capacity. (By contrast, nuclear reactors run at 92 percent capacity.) That means he will need 1,200 square miles of windmills to equal the output of three or four coal or nuclear plants, each of which occupies only a square mile. Factoring in the land required for mining adds several square miles for coal, and much less for uranium.

…If Pickens’s dream is realized, you will probably be able to drive from Texas to North Dakota without ever being out of sight of a windmill — just as they are visible everywhere in western Denmark. The one oasis may be Pickens’s own 68,000-acre property in the Texas panhandle. “I’m not going to have the windmills on my ranch,” he told Fast Company. “They’re ugly.”

Oh, there’s one more rub. Bringing windmills online will require building a whole new cross-country transmission system. While wind energy is concentrated in the Midwest, consumer demand is mostly on the East and West Coasts. Normal transmission lines — of 138 kilovolts (kV) and 345 kV — lose about 10 to 15 percent of their wattage every 1,000 miles, which is not a problem when the power is generated close to the consumer. But transmitting electricity halfway across the country will require a completely new infrastructure of 765 kV lines that cover long distances without losing power. This could be an enormous problem, because utility executives now say the only thing more difficult than siting a power plant is building new transmission lines, since every property owner and municipal jurisdiction in the path gets to have a say. Ranchers who are as just as picky as Pickens about what they permit on their land could pose huge obstacles.

So, let’s summarize — environmentalists will block it anyway, nobody wants their landscape littered with windmills, and it’s not cost effective.

Yeah, not sounding like such a hot idea anymore, is it.

That’s probably why, Tucker cites, “over the last decade, grid operators in Denmark, Japan, and Ireland have all refused to accept more wind energy” and “Denmark — the world leader in wind generation — stopped building windmills altogether in 2007.”

Meanwhile, as I’ve noted before, we ironically have an energy policy that is far more radically left-wing than France (which gets a whopping 80% of its electricity from nuclear power).

[Tucker] The energy released from splitting a uranium atom is 2 million times greater than the energy released by breaking a carbon-hydrogen bond in coal.

The tremendous energy density in uranium produces an extraordinarily smaller environmental footprint. It explains why uranium can be mined at a few isolated sites, while coal must be extracted by digging whole cities underground or ripping the tops off mountains, as is being done in West Virginia. It explains why a 1,000 MW coal plant must be fed by a 110-car coal train arriving every day, while a nuclear reactor is refueled by a single tractor-trailer delivering a batch of new fuel rods once every 18 months. It explains why France can take all the waste from 25 years of producing 75 percent of its electricity with nuclear reactors and store it beneath the floor of one room at La Hague. The incredible energy density in the nucleus of the atom is the greatest environmental benefaction ever bestowed upon humanity.

The solution to our electrical generating problem (which might in turn power cars) seems obvious. But don’t expect anything but more “China Syndrome” hysteria from the left.

I love the Dennis Miller radio show, and he had a great comment this week in response to Nanci Pelosi, et. al.’s, repetitive charge that “We can’t drill our way out of this [our energy woes].”

Miller’s reply: “Yeah, well we can’t ceiling fan our way out of it either.”

Brilliant! I hope that catches on. You want to build stockpiles of other energies? Great. But this pie in the sky notion that we’ll just have no need for petroleum is absurd. Republicans should be using Miller’s retort every day.