Not only does Gitmo do nothing to disabuse the enemy combatant prisoners of the jihad ideology, they comfort them with Islamic clerics (untrustworthy at best) and have Islamic translators whose loyalty must always be in doubt.

The United States in bending over backwards (or is it over?) to show that it is not prejudiced against Islam is commiting stupidity after stupidity.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 26, 2004 6:20 PM

But of course all those ding bat "bleeding hearts" wanted it that way.......after all Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar was "the" victim.........I wonder how many people Maulvi killed in his time for his ideology?

Posted by: Joe Bananas...in Pyjamas at September 26, 2004 6:40 PM

Good Riddance.

Time the US deport more mooooslims outta Gitmo into Afghanistan where they can be set up a s merry targets for the erstwhile northern alliance.

The Paki troops meanwhile continue to hunt with the US hound and run with the Taliban hare. Methinks once this US election pans out, Pak will better have to decide which side they really are on and act upon that decision.

Posted by: voletti at September 26, 2004 7:46 PM

FORMER GITMO INMATE KILLED....

Now THAT'S what I call GOOD news!

Posted by: krkrjak at September 26, 2004 9:12 PM

Why not use the months in Guantanamo to impart to at least some fo the prisoners a few home truths about Islam, its origins, and its failures. Most of it will be brushed off, but some of it, for some of the prisoners, may stick. If the non-Arabs, for example, are repeatedly told about how Islam is a vehicle for Arab imperialism, and that emphasis on the Qur'anic injunction about the "best of peoples" to whom the Qur'an was given, and in their language -- and then the requirement that all others read the Qur'an in Arabic, and many go further, adopting Arabic names, and aping Arab dress and ways -- this has one great virtue as propaganda -- it all happens to be true.

Others may be asked, or it may be wondered aloud in their presence, whether they ever question a Total System, that purports to explain the universe. The fact that for a thousand years Muslims have made no visible contribution to the world's intellectual life, which is also true, surely can be emphasized. What of the fact that OPEC nations have received 5-6 trillion dollars since 1973, and nowhere in the Muslim world has a real and stable economy been established. Or the fact that only in one member of the O.I.C., Turkey, is there a reasonable facsimile of democracy, and that this is a direct result of Kemalist reforms -- that is, reforms which help to constrain and contain Islam.

All of these things can be said, and the scrupulosity of the Americans in not saying any of this is puzzling. Why should Americans refrain from attempting to suggest certain truths about Islam -- not in order to obtain converts to Christianity, but to sow those doubts without which there will never be any taming of Islam, and it will remain the permanent threat it now seems to be -- one that can only be defeated through military means, given that other means, including psychological warfare, have not even been attempted, for fear of offending -- the enemy.

Posted by: Hugh at September 26, 2004 10:37 PM

I'm sure a program such as the one Hugh presents could have some positive effects for certain prisoner profiles. Others might be a bit harder to reach depending on the depth of their Islamist indoctrination.

Perhaps in addition to such a program, a moderate Imam could preach the evils of their ways. Denouncing the rational for their actions via the same scriptures used in their justifications. If Muslim apologist can use this tactic on gullible American infidels, why can it not be applied to captured Jihadists?

Posted by: Klink at September 26, 2004 11:58 PM

Re Hugh's proposal and Klink's comment about "re-educating" Moslems:

Once I corresponded with a Berber who was Moslem and dreamt of going to Israel to kill Jews. He was proud of the performance of Berbers in World War II in the French army. When I asked him how he and other Berbers, with such a proud heritage of warfare, could serve Islam which was forced on them by Arab conquest, he said, "Because Allah willed it."

No reference to Berber language (of which I used phrases on him to arouse some ethnic pride), pre-Islamic Berber history, with which he was familiar, could sway him from his allegiance to Islam.

Iranians (Persians) who have a knowledge of their history pre Islam, would probably be better subjects for re-education. Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi Moslems, even if they are not pure Arabs, probably have no allegiance to any pre-Islamic culture. That leaves Pakistanis. Although these are not Arabs, they appear to be firm in their allegiance to this foreign (to them) ideology forced on them by conquest.

Then, you could never be certain whether they would pretend to abjure some of the jihadist elements of Islam to be freed so that they could fight again.

This discussion at this time is academic, as the US provides them with Moslem chaplains. These are by no means "moderate" imams. If "moderate" clerics could be identified and sent to Gitmo to de-program jihadists, we could never be certain that these "moderates" were not the same types who pooh-pooh the incitements to violence in the Koran as being applicable only under certain circumstances, etc. That is, they will appear as apologists to us, but what will they teach their Moslem pupils?

Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 27, 2004 3:34 AM

You're quite right, unlcorns. There would be/is a problem with unmonitored Muslim clerics in our prison camps. It lends to reinforcement of Jihadist principles. Pardon the omission in my previous post of the prequalifier... "coached" moderate Imam. "Moderate" was intended for sarcastic purposes as is often used here. I'll try to be less nebulous and more to the point. Coached should be construed as special trained military/intelligence personnel fluid in Arabic languages and holding a knowledgeable command of the Islamic religion. He should not be a believer in the faith. He should pose to be.

I read Hugh's message as a palatable reparative countermeasure for the problem shown by this article. Perhaps more acceptable for consumption by our culture's hypersensitive civil rights activists. His prudent point can also be extended and applied on a global scale. A form of psychological warfare as suggested. Such revelations in their culture and religion would be essentially and purposely humiliating. Scholars such as Daniel Pipes and Victor Davis Hanson have expressed the ideal of resolved conquest by enemy humiliation as key.

Posted by: Klink at September 27, 2004 9:43 AM

Re-educate Muslims??? I'm afraid the results would be just about as successful as trying to feed them pork.

Posted by: krkrjak at September 27, 2004 2:10 PM

Klink says:

"I'm sure a program such as the one Hugh presents could have some positive effects for certain prisoner profiles. Others might be a bit harder to reach depending on the depth of their Islamist indoctrination."

Klink, would that it were so. Unfortunately, the number of "certain prisoner profiles" would be vanishingly small. Among the TOTAL Muslim population, given the biology of cognition, only about 2%-4% (or thereabouts) of people would be able to consider a change of mind.

Add to that the fact that jihad self-selects for the least likely to change their minds, and there is little hope that Guantanamo prisoners would be open to re-education.

Give some thought to most other people; would you be persuaded to leave your own religion?

My guess is that you wouldn't.

I know I keep threatening to do it, but one of these days I will write up something to make the case that for all practical purposes, only children below the age of puberty can be educated to see Islam as the rest of the world sees it. By the time they have passed through puberty, it is far too late for most of them, especially the ones who are attracted enough to jihad to participate in it.

Posted by: cubed at September 27, 2004 6:08 PM