Celebrity Idiocy on Guatanamo Bay

Frankie Boyle's hunger strike illustrates the profound delusion that infects much of the political discourse surrounding Guantanamo Bay. 

A few points.

The detainee that Boyle is acting in support of- Shaker Aamer, has been cleared for release due to the US Government's desire to close Guantanamo and placate the UK.

But let's be clear, Aamer is not some harmless guy who was simply caught up in Afghanistan. He's a terrorist.

Before taking his legal team's word at face value, it's worth considering Aamer's November 2007 detainee threat assessment. Here, the US Military found that Aamer posed a ''high'' threat and that his continued detention was of ''high'' intelligence value. This is an individual, who by his own admission, harbors extremist intentions towards the United States. In addition, evidence suggests that Aamer acted in substantial roles alongside Al Qa'ida facilitation and operations networks in Europe and North America. Aamer has major connections to known mass casualty plotters including Richard Reid - the December 2001 shoe bomber and Zacarias Moussaoui - the 20th hijacker. Further, although it somehow fails to escape the attention of western media outlets, the Guantanamo Bay hunger strikes are a well known AQ counter-interrogation technique.

In short, like Mos Def, I believe that Boyle is allowing himself to become a pawn for Al Qa'ida propaganda. Frankly, it's not surprising, Boyle's anti-Americanism is well known.

Anyway, if interested, my other thoughts on Guantanamo - Daily Caller article, BBC World Service radio debate, BBC World News discussion.

Mos Def Force Feeding - Guantanamo Bay

The rapper, Yasiin Bey (aka Mos Def), has just released a video in which he undergoes a force feeding procedure supposedly similar to that currently being employed at Guantanamo Bay. I have very little interest in Mos Def's commentary. His efforts represent the worst form of political populism; a poorly informed entertainer pushing a political narrative. Mos Def has done this before - in 2009, he offered an embarrassingly weak endorsement of nuclear disarmament (and suffered the intellectual wrath of Christopher Hitchens). Now he's aligned himself with those who believe that Guantanamo should be closed. Fair enough- the prison at Guantanamo Bay is an important issue of public interest. It deserves debate. My issue with Mos Def is that he only offers one side of the story. He neglects to examine why the US has a compelling interest in preventing enemy combatants from returning to the battlefield. I support the continued operation of Guantanamo but I recognize the complexity of the debate. Conversely, Mos Def is pontificating in a realm of intellectual absurdity.

BBC World News Debate - Guantanamo

Below is a link to the video of my BBC World News - Guantanamo Bay debate (from last week). If interested, you should also check out my BBC World Service radio discussion + Daily Caller article.

Abu Ghaith capture

The US Government has captured Osama bin Laden's son-in-law and will put him on trial. In a civilian court. A few observations here. 

1) The suggestion that Abu Ghaith had been detained in Iran should surprise nobody. The Iranians and Al Qa'ida hate each other and like to kill each other. However, they do have two shared affinities - killing civilians and an embedded sympathy for brutal theological authoritarianism.

2) Although the news reports are currently lacking in detail, it seems apparent that Abu Ghaith was the subject of a rendition operation. As the Washington Post put it- Sulaiman Abu Ghaith was initially detained in Turkey but was taken into U.S. custody in Jordan while he was in the process of being deported to Kuwait, according to U.S. officials. Rep. Peter King's congratulatory message to the CIA would seemingly give weight to this theory. If true, I have no problem with this action. In fact, it would be good news. It would indicate that President Obama has retained rendition as a crucial tool of US counter-terrorism efforts (see my piece from yesterday on CIA-Brennan-Rand).

3) Unfortunately, this story isn't entirely positive. If, as reports indicate, the Obama Administration is intending to try Abu Ghaith in New York, they're making a serious mistake. Abu Ghaith is an obvious member of Al Qa'ida core. Under the post 9/11 Congressional AUMF, Al Qa'ida members are recognized as military adversaries of the United States - illegitimate adversaries but also non-civilian. As such, under Federal law they should be tried under military authority. For all it's previous negative PR, Guantanamo Bay should remain open and men (or women) like Abu Ghaith should be tried under US military jurisdiction. By prosecuting Abu Ghaith in civilian court, the President would entertain the false delusion that terrorism is a form of criminality. It isn't. In it's character of action and it's corollary strategic aims, Al Qa'ida's terrorism is a true manifestation of Clausewitz's abiding definition of war - 'the continuation of politics by other means'. A civilian trial would also conflict with the President's March 2011 decision to re-activate the military court system.

On August 7th 1998, Al Qa'ida declared war on the United States. The laws of war and American strategic interest both demand that Al Qa'ida face the consequences of their chosen course.

My latest piece for The Daily Caller

Why Guantanamo Bay should remain open

KSM Arraignment

The arraignment of KSM and his accused 9/11 co-conspirators will occur later today (the link has good bios on the guys). 

My thoughts... I stand by an earlier post in which I welcomed that these individuals would be charged and tried under the military commissions process. The head prosecutor is also the best of the best of what America has to offer (the accolades in the linked article are matched by statements that I have heard from others who know Martins). 

Back to the trial authority question... From my perspective, the 9/11 attacks were an act of war against the US. The strikes were carried out by a group of individuals serving the political agenda of a formal organisation focused on destroying the United States. I disagree with the notion that it is only states that can carry out acts of war. This is the 21st century.. for a few examples of non-state actors able to wage effective war, just look at current instability in Afghanistan, Mexico and Yemen. For another example, Hizballah's military power in Lebanon means that this group has effective power over the stability of that country's political process (a power they are not afraid to use). My point is that non-state actors have extroadinary power potential. To treat them as simple criminals ignores the fundamental political nature of their agenda and their associated acts. A criminal law focus also allows these organisations to use the criminal justice system as a propaganda weapon and thus as a vehicle for the continued pursuit of their agenda. There is a final relevant point... the jurors who would consider a civilian court trial simply do not have a sufficient understanding of the military-political component of organisations like Al Qa'ida.

Guantanamo Bay Soccer Field

Fox News is running a story about the Defense Department's decision to build a soccer field in the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The article suggests that this is an extraordinary waste of money and an unwarranted reward to undeserving terrorists. I disagree. 

The money, $750,000, is nothing in terms of the overall DOD budget - which is over $600 billion/year. At the same time, setting up this soccer field has major potential benefits. First, by reducing US-inmate security escort time (as the news report comments) it reduces the risk of Guantanamo inmates using force against our security garrison. 

Second, it offers the chance for better morale in the camp (which serves US interests by making inmates more amenable to co-operation with US authorities on other issues). 

Third, observing the social interactions of the detainees while they play will allow US intelligence officers to identify social hierarchy/interaction dynamics and then use this information for intelligence purposes. 

Fourth, the soccer field is good PR for the US. While I agree that the camp should stay open, the negative PR connotations that surround Guantanamo in the eyes of many in the muslim world, are unquestionably damaging to US interests. This negative PR undercuts our true (albeit imperfect) narrative of standing for democracy and empowerment in the 'war on terror' and helps feed the propaganda/support base of groups like Al Qa'ida. As David Galula would suggest, the 'war on terror' is 80% an ideas war. This soccer field is a small price for the prospect of real American strategic gains.