Archive

Archive for the ‘Political Commentary’ Category

Progressives Exposed: Fact Check on GITMO & Benghazi Propaganda

June 9th, 2014 No comments
Political propaganda graphic.

Political propaganda graphic.

Progressives Exposed: Fact Check on GITMO & Benghazi Propaganda

original article written by Net Advisor

EXCERPT: This report investigates liberal propaganda as seen on the Internet. Recently, we came across a particular “push back” piece that tries to shift blame from Obama’s release of 5 top GITMO terrorists in exchange of a POW deserter. We thoroughly investigated the claims with over 100 references and reported our findings here.

After reading this report, we’re confident that you will know that not only have we exposed the truth, you will also have a wider understanding about GITMO, Benghazi, and the politics involved. We discuss all the major players involved in this 18-page report (including a map and images).

Politics, USA. We’ll, there you go again,” former President Ronald Reagan might have said to the latest propaganda circulating the Internet:

[1] Political Push-back?

This seems to be push-back to President Obama’s controversial release of 5 key Taliban terrorists in exchange for 1 apparent POW deserter.

We’ll if the Bush graphic statements were true, the poster(s) could just cite within the graphic with the source of their claim, the date, and location of the source where it could be verified.

I studied behavioral psychology and did analyze propaganda dating back to WWI. Facts are irrelevant to the propagandist. One could probably argue that propaganda goes back since the beginning of human kind.

[2] Purpose of Propaganda

The purpose of propaganda is to mislead the reader into a false narrative. Since most people won’t bother to check the facts, I decided to do it myself for my readers.

[3] Fact Checking

I actually wanted to know the truth too. Did Bush really do all that as claimed in the graphic? It initially took about an hour to come across 32 different files I collected and made copies. As I completed this report I found many more files for this topic and included the relevant ones here. Some files were similar stories published by the media.

Some of these files I found contained conflicting statements. Some files were from leaked classified documents released to the UK and U.S. media from WikiLeaks. Some of the files were declassified from the Pentagon, along with media reports from the general political left and political right perspectives. Needless to say, it appears both sides made errors, as my findings will show.

Camp Delta. U.S. military base and detention center. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Image Credit: NY Times).

Camp Delta. U.S. military base and detention center. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (Image Credit: NY Times).

[4] Summary of Findings: Regarding the “Bush Graphic”

1. The dates are in correct. There were GITMO transfers and releases going back to 2002 [Point 6]; not just between 2007 and 2009 as the second Bush graphic (below) claims.

2. The number and the type of detainees are flawed [Points 6 & 7].

3. The Obama Administration, Liberal Press including Mother Jones and the New York Times all seem to agree that the person named in the graphic (Abu Sufian bin Qumu) was NOT involved in the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya as the Bush graphics claim [Points 9 & 14].

I Can Also Conclude:

4. The Bush Administration did transfer control of a number of GITMO detainees back to their country of citizenship to be held in detention by their host government [Point 6].

5. The Bush Administration did release control of a number of GITMO detainees who were found not to be security threats to the U.S. or its allies, and were probably mistakenly imprisoned. When the facts were discovered, they were released back to their country of citizenship [Point 6].

6. The Bush Administration did release or transfer a small number of people and some returned to the battle, a few were killed or committed suicide [Points 16 & 17]. There were no cases where President Bush or anyone in or affiliated with his Administration had at any time negotiated with terrorists.

In my findings, one should note that the U.S. government recognizes the difference between being released and being transferred. Being released is where one is effectively set free, and sent back to their country of citizenship. Being transferred means one is taken from U.S. military custody, and then placed in control of the authoritative government in the subject’s country of citizenship. At that point the transferred persons are held in prison and or subject to their host country’s judicial review.

7. President Obama transferred some 3,000 U.S. held prisoners in an Afghanistan back to Afgan control on September 10, 2012. This does not mean President Obama opened the cell doors and let out 3,000 Afgan prisoners run loose in Afghanistan. It means that President Obama turned over control of the prison in question back to the government of Afghanistan. It will be up to the Afgans now to control the 3,000 prisoners. Good Luck.

Analyzing Speech

When reading political speech, or any claim, especially in uncited graphic form, one should pay very close attention to each and every word. The propagandists will often use half-truths where part of what they are saying may be partially correct, but in total what they are saying is really false and misleading and does not support the facts when investigated.

A similar propaganda graphic circulating the Internet looks like the below. At least this person takes credit for it, although he fails to cite any sources to make his argument stick. Since we’re apparently banned from Facebook, please someone send Chris a copy of this report.

Debunking_misleading-propoganda-2

Political propaganda graphic.

[5] The Evidence

Now let’s take a closer look at the evidence and see what is true and what is not true.

Politifact: Fact Check or Hearsay?

Politifact claimed they did a fact check and I had hoped this could solve part of the debate. The problem is the fact checker didn’t properly check the facts. Politifact made a hearsay argument testifying that because President Obama wrote something (an executive order); Politifact assumed Obama’s facts were true. Worse, Politifact didn’t even bother to link the source to the executive order they discussed as the basis for their fact check. Are we supposed to read all Obama’s executive orders and figure out which one applies to this particular fact check?

Then Politifact claims Obama’s statement was “backed up by a fact sheet,” then fails to name the source let alone link the evidence.

Even if Politifact’s “fact checks” were true, we can’t draw any conclusions based on “trust me.” Their argument was based on hearsay and they cited no evidence to support their fact checking; thus we can’t validate their claims. So I did a little more in-depth work here.

[6] How Many GITMO Detainees Did Bush Release?

In 2009 CNN reported 520 GITMO detainees had been released since 2002 to their home countries who would take them back.

“Since 2002, the Pentagon has released about 520 detainees to their home countries or counties that agreed to take them. Some have been released in full by those countries while others are still being held.”

— Source: CNN

Of the 520 GITMO detainees who were released or transferred it was determined that 169 were not terrorists. Some of these GITMO detainees were singled out by disgruntled villagers who made the accusation that someone in their village was a ‘terrorist’. Guess that’s one way to get back at your neighbor?

Here are the official GITMO Bush numbers I found:

  • 1 German Turk was freed from GITMO in 2006 and turned over to the German government after the U.S. determined he was not a threat to the U.S.
  • 3 British Muslim citizens captured in Afghanistan in 2001 were returned to the British government and subsequently released in January 2002.
  • 10 Chinese Muslims were not deemed an enemy of the United States, however were determined to be an enemy of the Chinese government who refused to take them back to China. Some 20 countries have refused to take any GITMO detainee from the U.S. custody even if they are deemed low risk.
  • 150 detainees were determined to be “innocent.”

So it looks like of the 520 released or transferred detainees, 169 were deemed innocent or not a threat to the U.S. and another 380 were low-level soldiers. That brings the total to 549 as low to no threat to the United States. It is possible that the detainee number is higher than CNN reported because the release or transfers came after the 520 that CNN reported.

WikiLeaks released a report through the Telegraph.UK who said, “599 detainees have already been released – some to prisons in other countries.” Again these were considered innocent, non-threatening, or low-level foot-soldiers. Our detainee numbers were based on the WikkiLeaks report because it was obtained directly from official U.S. government data.

It also appears that most of these releases and transfers took place in the early 2000’s, not in 2007-2009 as the propaganda graphic suggests. Many of the deemed “innocent” were released within a year of captivity. There were also six people cleared in January 2009. The only ones President Bush released in January 2009 was “Bismullah” (ISN#968), who was determined not to be an enemy combatant.

The other 5 were repatriated (transferred like a prisoner, not freed) back to their respective country of citizenship; one in Algeria and four to Iraq.

Obama’s GITMO Executive Orders

Just two days after taking office, President Obama issued three Executive Orders (EO 13491, EO 13492, EO 13493) and immediately began releasing, repatriating, or transferring 17 GITMO detainees in 2009 some with highly questionable backgrounds. President Obama single-handedly reversed the previous Executive Orders of President Bush.

All Presidential Executive Orders are made without Congressional approval, but can be technically challenged under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

01/03/2003: Al-Qaeda operations commander and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Photo shortly after his capture during an U.S. raid in Pakistan. (Credit: AP)

01/03/2003: Al-Qaeda operations commander and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Photo shortly after his capture during an U.S. raid in Pakistan. (Credit: AP)

[7] The Ugly – 220 Most Dangerous Terrorists

According to a leaked 2011 report, there were 220 GITMO detainees “assessed by the Americans to be dangerous international terrorists” including 100 Al-Qaeda terrorists which includes 15 “kingpins” – the most senior terrorist operatives. The worst being Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Al-Qaeda operations commander and mastermind of the 9/11 (2001) attacks in the United States.

[8] “Bush Hypocrisy” Propaganda Debunked

After closely examining over 80 reports as discussed hereto, I came to this conclusion:

The number of credible reports that discussed President Bush (or the Administration) negotiating with terrorists = ZERO.

The number of credible reports that discussed President Bush (or the Administration) trading American captives, hostages, POW’s or the same effect for anything = ZERO.

If anyone can find verifiable records, please contact us. The propaganda Bush graphic (above Point 5) admits that the U.S. “got nothing in return.” In other words, the liberal just admitted that the Bush Administration never negotiated with terrorists. We already discussed who and why some were returned under [Point 6].

County of Libya and border nations. Credit: mapsNworld.com

County of Libya and border nations. Credit: mapsNworld.com

[9] Bush-GITMO, Obama-Libya Debunked

Next, we investigated the claims (in the propaganda Bush graphics) that Abu Sufian bin Qumu was a ‘GITMO detainee’ and Bin Quma “was a suspect in the Benghazi Embassy attack.” Here is where we have the half-truth. There is a lot of detail here so follow closely.

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) records show that Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda Bin Qumu was a GITMO detainee for six years. DOD’s report found that Bin Quma had been long addicted to drugs, has a non-specific personality disorder, is extremely violent, has latent Tuberculosis (refused treatment), was in imprisoned in Libya for 10 years and escaped in 1993. Bin Qumo had been hostile to GITMO guards, harassed at least one in 2005 and assaulted another GITMO guard in 2003.

But for whatever crazy reason, the Bush Administration transferred Bin Qumu back to the prison custody of the Libyan government in 2007. Now here is where this all gets interesting and we may not have known this back in 2007. In 2008, the Libyan government under then General Mumar Qaddafi made a huge strategic mistake and released Bin Qumu “as part of a reconciliation with Islamists in Libya.”

Now here is the “funny part.” As it turns out later, Bin Qumu lead the rebels that President Obama supported during Obama’s illegal war against Qaddafi.

[10] Was Obama’s Attack on Libya illegal?

Let’s check out the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and see what the law says.

“The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

per 50 United States Code § 1541 [Source: Cornell University Law School]

President Obama was warned by the Speaker of the House in advance that without providing a legal basis for his military action against Qaddafi, Obama would be violating the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Obama failed to heed such warning.

Ten members of Congress (Democrats and Republicans) together sued President Obama for violation of 50 USC § 1541. All President Obama had to do is get approval from Congress since the U.S. was not currently under attack or under imminent attack from Libya in 2011.

Interestingly enough, about 15 months later, President Obama didn’t even bother to respond to Americans under immediate attack in Benghazi, Libya, even thought he had the authority to act without initial consultation with Congress in this case under 50 USC § 1541.

President Barack Obama after 2011 speech on Libya. (Credit Uncited. Please advise for credit).

President Barack Obama after 2011 speech on Libya. (Credit Uncited. Please advise for credit).

[11] If You Like Your Country, You Can Keep It.

President Obama said in 2011 that he would not use force to get rid of Qaddafi.

“President Barack Obama told Americans on Monday the United States would work with its allies to hasten the day when Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi leaves power, but would not use force to topple him.”

— Source: Reuters, March 28, 2011

[12] If You Like Your Country, You Can’t Keep It.

ABC NewsJake Tapper reported just two days later (video) that President Obama signed a secret President Order providing aid to the Libyan rebels. That’s right. The psycho terrorist (Bin Qumo) that President Bush handed back to the Libyan government in 2008 was now going to get support under the direct authority of President Obama.

“President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

— Source: Reuters, March 30, 2011

President Obama said he would not rule out giving weapons to the Libyan rebels, but he would not say this publicly anyway. Just FYI, if you are going to fight a war, sending band-aids and food won’t help you win. You need weapons, and troops, air-support and a lot of it.

As it turns out Obama’s illegal Libyan war initially cost U.S. taxpayers $550 million and Obama Officials at the Pentagon said in 2011 it would cost another $40 Million per month.

Less than one month later, on April 26, 2011, the UK media, The Telegraph released a WikiLeaks cable that said that Bin Qumu was a GITMO detainee, and now was the Libyan rebel leader (that Obama is now giving aid to).

Libya's Former (Killed in Action) Col. Qaddafi seen here with his all-female only ("Virgin") bodyguards.  Qaddafi never trusted a male to protect him. He feared that they would try to overthrow him. His military commanders tended to be male however. (Image Credit uncited. Please advise for credit).

Libya’s Former (Killed in Action) Col. Qaddafi seen here with his all-female only (“Virgin”) bodyguards. Qaddafi never trusted a male to protect him. He feared that they would try to overthrow him. His military commanders tended to be male however. (Image Credit uncited. Please advise for credit).

[13] A Little More Background About Qaddafi & the U.N.

After Libya cooperated and paid repatriations to the families of the 1988 Pan-Am Flight 103 terrorist bombing that killed all 259 passengers, the United Nations allowed Libya’s Qaddafi to be the President of U.N. Security Council. And as head of U.N. Security Council, Qaddafi had the balls to say this:

“It should not be called the Security Council, it should be called the ‘terror council.’”

— Col. Gaddafi said at the UN Security Council. Source: MS-NBC, 09-23-2009

So yes, the guy (Gaddafi) who was in charge of major terrorists’ acts including against U.S. troops in Germany (technically a terrorist act or an act of war) up until about 1986, became head of the United Nations Security Council.

About a year-and-a-half later, on March 17, 2011, the United Nations (not the United States) adopted resolution #1973 [PDF] authorizing a ‘no-fly zone over Libya,’ and ‘all necessary measures’ (including, and not limited to using force). Remember, President Obama said he would not use force against Qaddafi, but at the same time wanted him out of power. America’s U.N. Ambassador supporting and encouraging this U.N. move against (technically) Libya’s (‘legitimate’) government was Susan Rice.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice (3rd from Left) votes on a motion on Libya at the UN Security Council meeting on March 12, 2012 in New York City. Ministers at the meeting also discussed the continued violence in the Middle East. One day short of six months later the U.S> Consulate would be attacked by terrorist in Benghazi Libya. Rice would later blame the attack on an 'Internet video.' (Photo Credit: John Moore/Getty Images. Source: Zimbo).

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice (3rd from Left) votes on a motion on Libya at the UN Security Council meeting on March 12, 2012 in New York City. Ministers at the meeting also discussed the continued violence in the Middle East. One day short of six months later the U.S. Consulate would be attacked by terrorist in Benghazi Libya. Rice would later blame the attack on an ‘Internet video.’ (Photo Credit: John Moore/Getty Images. Source: Zimbo).

[14] “Bush-Benghazi” Propaganda Debunked

Liberals have a hard time dealing with Benghazi. It’s not a political debate. It’s what can happen when you elect inexperienced, incompetent people in leadership positions. When they screw up, they apologize to religious radicals, cover up their false stories, and now are trying to somehow create a false link (propaganda Bush graphics) that Benghazi was “Bush’s fault.” President Bush – has been out of office since January 2009. The Benghazi attack occurred 9/11/2012, during the third year of the Obama Administration.

After extensive review of above said documents, especially those relating to Abu Sufian Bin Qumu, no one could draw a credible link to Bin Qumu and Benghazi. The U.S. released Bin Qumu to the Libyan government, who freed him under religious pact a year later, and then Obama supported Bin Qumu as the rebel leader to take down Qaddafi.

A Fox News intelligence source thought that Bin Qumu may have been involved in the 9/11 (2012) Benghazi attack. The Obama Administration’s NSA official told the far left media organization, Mother Jones that was not the case.

“U.S. national security official tells Mother Jones that “that report is wrong, there’s no intelligence suggesting that he (Bin Qumu) was leading the attack on the consulate that evening.”

The official insisted there was no evidence that Qumu “directed, coordinated, or planned” the (Benghazi) attack.”

— Source: Mother Jones – a far left media organization (report highlighted)

Further, another liberal media source, Time Magazine wrote an April 25, 2011 article praising Bin Qumu and calling him an “ex-jihadis,” who now deny’s sympathy for al-Qaeda and that Bin Qumu is now “all about justice and liberation from tyranny (from Qaddafi’s Libya).”

“Bin Qumu and other prominent ex-jihadis now hold commanding positions in Darnah’s new rebel government, and have organized training camps for rebel militia. They have all denied any sympathy and support for al-Qaeda, and like other armed Islamist movements of the past, their rhetoric now is all about justice and liberation from tyranny.”

— Source: Time, April 25, 2011 (HTML / PDF – highlight added)

So based on liberal sources including directly from the Obama Administration, ex-GITMO detainee, Bin Qumu was apparently not involved in the Benghazi attack on the U.S. Consulate on or about September 11, 2012. This makes the claimed ‘Bush Benghazi connection’ a complete and unsubstantiated fabrication.

Let’s check with Secretary Clinton and see what she had to say about Bin Qumu’s Libyan rebels.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at UN Security Council meeting on "peace and security in the Middle East and doodles on her remarks." (Photo Credit: EMMANUEL DUNAND AFP/Getty Images. Source: Global Post)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at UN Security Council meeting on “peace and security in the Middle East and doodles on her remarks.” (Photo Credit: EMMANUEL DUNAND AFP/Getty Images. Source: Global Post)

[15] Sec. of State Hillary Clinton: We Can Arm the Libyan Rebels If We Choose.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she interpreted the 2011 UN Resolution # 1973 to allow the U.S. to arm the Libyan rebels if the U.S. chooses to do so.

Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton’s State Department denied multiple security requests long prior to [Report, Point 8] and even during [Report, Points 10-13] the 9/11/2012 U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya. Benghazi is still an unsafe place today.

Like true hypocrisy spelled out here twice. We have shown that President Obama was OK with illegally bypassing Congress to support and defend Libyan rebels. Obama was not OK to even bother responding to attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi the following year.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton enjoys the same hypocrisy. Madam Secretary Clinton was ‘gun-ho’ to give whatever aid (including weapons) to protect and defend Libyan rebels. Hillary Clinton was not OK with giving any support nor would she seek to even try and defend Americans in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens she sent there. Now liberals, go make a graphic of that.

Hillary 2011: OK to Arm Libyan Rebels.
Hillary 2012: Defend Americans at Our Libyan Consulate? Denied.

In Short

So basically what we have here is President Obama, then Ambassador Susan Rice, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging and supporting U.N. Resolution #1973 in 2011 to effectively allow a coup to topple the (technically ‘legitimate,’ albeit tyrant) Libyan government.

President Obama then bypasses Congress and issues an Executive Order. The Order provides aid (which can include weapons) to the Libyan rebels that would include aid to the former GITMO detainee and rebel leader, Bin Qumu. Liberals chant (said propaganda graphics) this is all somehow Bush’s fault?

Now that we have exposed the truth about the propaganda Bush graphics, to be fair in reporting, we did find some issues with the Bush Administration of detainees that managed to get released that we take issue with.

[16] Bush Errors in GITMO

As discussed earlier, some 169 “innocent” people got caught up in the battlefields, or were wrongly accused by their disgruntled Afgan neighbors, and got detained in GITMO.

Instead of falsely blaming the mistakes on political opposition, creating misleading talking points or going on the Sunday News shows to deceive the country [Points 3-7], the Bush Administration at least admitted their errors when realized, apologized and corrected them.

Aside from the wrong people that got detained, the stated GITMO records show most were returned back to their country of citizenship within a year. If I can quote Britney Spears, there were a few others however that got released who were “not that innocent.”

[17] Back in the Fight?

According to a Pentagon report published by CNN (Jan 14, 2009), there were 61 GITMO detainees who either committed or suspected to have committed attacks after their release. The word, “suspect” mean believed but not proven. There were 18 individuals who were “officially confirmed” to be back in the fight after being released to their home country.

After that CNN report came out, CNN stated security experts questioned the numbers. Of the 18 that reportedly went back into the fight, Saeed Shihri is believed to been involved in the 2008 U.S. embassy attack in Yemen. According to the Washington Post, no Americans were killed in that attack. Saeed Shirhri was reportedly killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2013.

Two other released GITMO detainees returned to the battlefield, but were subsequently killed. Abdullah Mahsudblew himself up” to avoid capture by Pakistani forces in July 2007. Ruslan Anatolivich Odizhev ‘was transferred to Russia in March 2004 and killed in a gun battle with Russian security forces in June 2007.’

Of the other 15 GITMO detainees released under President Bush, their whereabouts or status is apparently not public.

This is the problem when you release zealot enemy combatants. It’s not like WWII where we returned POWs back to host countries, and people adjusted to a new life. These terrorists don’t have a country, nor do they have a government. If they did, we could wipe most of them out in a week to a month because they would all be in one county where the U.S. could target.

These are religious radicals, living world-wide including in the U.S. (Illegal immigration report – Persons of Interest), who have no other mindset but to kill anyone who does not follow and support their religious beliefs. These people are not going to go back and start a wheat farm business.

[18] Why Not Release More from GITMO?

Despite unpopular opinion in 2009, a Democrat-controlled majority in the U.S. Senate voted 90-6 to block President Obama’s wishes to transfer all GITMO detainees to the U.S. homeland. That same Democrat Senate also voted to block funding that would close GITMO.

By 2010, President Obama intended to fulfill his campaign promise (for whatever reason why) and tried to close GITMO again. At that time half of the GITMO detainees were from Yemen.

After learning of a terror plot against U.S. Northwest Airliner Flight 253 bound to Detroit, Michigan on December 25, 2009 (which was foiled by passengers on their plane), President Obama halted all GITMO detainee transfers and releases.

Further, despite the populous speeches, President Obama determined in 2010 that we really can’t close GITMO because at least 48 detainees are too dangerous to transfer elsewhere.

In November 2010, President Obama determined that 48 GITMO detainees were “too dangerous” to transfer.

— Source: BBC News, Nov. 18, 2010

We also dissected that President Obama really doesn’t give hoot about whether or not GITMO should be closed. Obama was more concerned about how if he did close GITMO, how that would negatively impact his Presidential re-election in 2012.

“So when will Guantanamo be closed?
This is unclear. The issue was not widely debated during the mid-term elections and Mr Obama has largely ceased to push for closure in public.”

— Source: BBC News, Nov. 18, 2010

A 2012 Washington Post-ABC News poll found “70 percent of respondents approved of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay.”

The poll also found:

“53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open.”

— Source: Washington Post-ABC News, Feb. 7, 2012 (highlight added)

[19] Prison Life Better Than Their Real Life?

The remaining radical GITMO detainees are well cared for. The U.S. is spending $1.6 Million per detainee each year.

The public now believes (50-31) that the GITMO detainees get better healthcare than American war veterans.

The Obama Administration even spent $774,000 to build the terrorists a 28,000 square foot soccer field for their enjoyment.

To give you an idea how much money this is and to compare with, I used to sit on a school’s budget and over-site committee. The annual budget allocated for kids was far less than $100,000. In other words, the Obama Administration has provided over 7x the money to entertain terrorists, than the government provides for American children at a U.S. school.

Terrorists Gets a New $744,000 Soccer Field - Funded by U.S. Tax Payers. image credit: Reuters Source: theatlanticwire.com

Terrorists Gets a New $744,000 Soccer Field – Funded by U.S. Tax Payers. (Image credit: Reuters Source: theatlanticwire.com)

[20] Left is Not Right About GITMO – Commentary

Now we have the truth about the propaganda graphic about GITMO, Benghazi and all the players on both sides of the political aisle. Look at what you had to read to get the truth. Quite frankly, I learned a lot researching this report.

What is so astounding to me is how people think we should just close a prison whose remaining residence are KNOWN TERRORISTS, and they (liberals) are so concerned that the terrorists need to be free? The Left never seems to mention about the 1000’s of U.S. and allied troops that were killed in combat fighting these very same people.

One has to ask themselves, what kind of people would be sympathetic to these terrorists? The answer by definition would be of course a terrorist sympathizer.

I’m not an attorney, but a terrorist sympathizer may not necessarily be illegal, but most law-biding citizens might take fundamental issue with a sympathetic view against people who want to destroy us. One would cross the line when they provide material support (18 USC §2339A and 18 USC §2339B), or harbor a terrorist (18 USC §2339) [Report: Point 15].

So what to do with the remaining terrorists at GITMO? If the Left wants to close GITMO, should we randomly transfer one to a liberal’s home since they are so in support of them being free? Maybe they can baby sit the kids, and help with laundry?

Do we send them back to their respective country? The 9/11 terrorists managed to find their way into the U.S., and so have many others including the Underwear bomber, the Boston Bombers – all radical religious-driven terrorists by the way. Are you sure you want to let all these people roam and reconnect with their evil ways? Do liberals think that 10-14 years in prison is a fair sentence for those who raped, murdered 100’s if not 1,000’s?

Some oversimplify the problems, who don’t research or understand the problems. The U.S. doesn’t want to put them on trial, even a military trial because they would then see classified intelligence documents (evidence against them) learning how we found them and how we knew what we knew. Despite this, Congress had a bill in 2013 to allocate funding for some trials for the 166 detainees, and to keep the base running indefinitely.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

If you have enjoyed our reports, consider donating any amount to help fray the costs of operations. Please read more in the upper right column. Thank you!

Related Reports:

Original article content, Copyright © 2014 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.

NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.

___________________________________________________________________________

Categories: Political Commentary