I want to know too. From AP, with thanks to pfinn:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike are demanding to know why the Bush administration chose to release to Syria a terror suspect when several prosecutors and FBI agents had collected evidence for a possible criminal case.The circumstances surrounding Nabil al-Marabh's release, detailed in a recent Associated Press story, are "of deep concern and appear to be a departure from an aggressive, proactive approach to the war on terrorism," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote Tuesday in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft.
The Iowa Republican repeatedly cited the AP story and demanded that Ashcroft answer 19 questions about al-Marabh's case, including why the Justice Department didn't prosecute the man they had in custody for nearly two years either in a military tribunal or through a secret court proceeding that could protect intelligence information.
Grassley also asked Justice to detail what has happened to other terror suspects that appeared on the same post-Sept. 11 terrorism list as al-Marabh.
No takers? OK, I'll go first....
The answers to the questions raised by this situation have more to do with the life or death of us, our loved ones, and Western Civilization itself than anything going on beyond our shores, with the possible exception of organized crime in the former Soviet Union, and of course, that lunatic in North Korea.
My cynical guess is that Ashcroft, a failed politician (his last defeat came at the hands of an electorate that gladly voted for a dead man knowing full well a woman Democrat would get the seat rather than see him re-elected)whom I've long suspected of being a schill for the far right, is afraid these Jihadists, if brought to trial, will spill the beans on their "Bubba" connection.
This would go far in explaining why Ashcroft, despite having been handed ( by the State Department as early as Summer of 2001) information concerning members of right-wing groups traveling to the Mideast to meet, plan and train with Islamist groups (in clear violation of, among other Federal laws, the Neutrality Act, used to great effect recently on the Virginia Paintballers)appears to be ignorant of, or completely ignoring the "thin veil of sympathizers" at the root of any terrorist or revolutionary movement within a sovereign nation.
The question remains, ..."Why?"
Of course, what might anyone expect of an Attorney General who learned everything he knows about fighting terrorism from the French. No kidding...
I guess the guy wasn't wanted for burning up SUVs. Asscroft let him go. Maybe Asscroft realized he was dealing with a fellow "man of God."... or maybe Asscroft is converting to Islam. He doesn't drink, hate druggies, hate sissies, thinks women belong at home... he'll make an excellent Jihadi.
Ashcroft:
It was all Clinton's fault.