Michael Radu at FrontPage looks at the case of the Guantanamo Four, and draws some important conclusions:
Their names: Mourad Benchellali, Nizar Sassi, Brahim Yadel and Imad Achab Kanouni.
Their current status: captured in Afghanistan by US forces, the four–all of whom are French citizens or residents– were held at Camp Guantanamo for over two years. That is, until last month, when they were sent back to France and placed under arrest on charges of “criminal association with the intent of committing acts of terrorism” and, more specifically, of membership in the terrorist “Chechen connection.”
The case of these four men is typical of the terrorists held at Guantanamo and thus, deserves some examination. While we are constantly being told by “human rights” activists that the prisoners at Guantanamo are ” illegally” held, and that many, if not all are “innocent” and have been mistreated by the Americans, the reality is something far different….
He then details the personal histories of the Four, all of whom were deeply involved in Islamic terrorism. Read it all.
Let us start with the obvious: all four men were French citizens–born in France, trained in Afghanistan–and captured there as well. All four had extensive police records; and all four were part of an Islamist terrorist movement based in France and Germany, with close ties to London (in addition, the Benchellali clan and, by implication, Nizar Sassi, were directly linked to Algerian terrorism). All were implicated in international terrorism in the Balkans and/or Afghanistan, but also in Western Europe. The four men’s backgrounds reaffirm that Islamist terror has no borders, and its best operatives are not the millions of largely illiterate sympathizers in Muslim majority countries but those born and bred in the West–something Al Qaeda itself admits.
Sociologically, the four are personal failures – unable and/or unwilling to hold jobs, poor or insufficiently educated, all with petty crime records, and, in the Benchellali case, a dysfunctional and already radicalized family environment.
Legally, the arguments already presented by the four terrorists’ lawyers are telling, and should be seen as a preview of things to come in U.S. courts. First, “study” in Islamist “schools” is a perfectly legitimate way of hiding terrorist indoctrination and indeed terrorist training. Second, alleged “abuse” by the evil Americans at Guantanamo plays to an increasingly intense anti-American atmosphere in Europe (expect Abu Ghraib to become standard defense as well).
If all Guantanamo detainees are as “innocent” as the French four, the entire world should thank Washington for taking out of business some 600 professional terrorists, notwithstanding the “human rights” fundamentalists’ baseless claim that Guantanamo is a torture center. Medically, the four had nothing to show as far as “torture” is concerned – unless, that is, denial of access to Coca Cola is indeed “torture” under “international standards” as defined by Amnesty International.
Ultimately, the “Guantanamo Four” are a symbol of the West’s ability to deal with Islamist terror, and, unpleasant as the French may be for most Americans, it is clearly better that the standards be set in Paris than elsewhere in “old” Europe. On the other hand, those still claiming that the detainees in Guantanamo are “victims” rather than actual or potential terrorists, should face the reality that defending them is not defending law or Western moral and legal standards, but defending crime.