The Atlantic has an article by Therese Postel which illustrates both the surreal vision of the media and its inexorable bias. The report is about the American prision at Guantanamo and its supposedly toxic effect on national security. According to Postel, Guantanamo is a wonderful recruiting tool for al Qaeda and must be closed. She further argues that there is no need for Guantanamo. After all, only six of the prisoners are facing "formal charges" and about a third are on a hunger strike to protest their continued captivity. Even worse, says Postel, Guantanamo has been featured in about one quarter of the issues of the al Qaeda magazine Inspire. The final horror disclosed by Postel is that Guantanamo is not about to be closed; indeed president Obama signed a bill that makes this clear and then he closed the State Department office that was tasked with looking for new homes for the prisoners.
So, why would I call this surreal? First of all, Postel operates on a complete misunderstanding of the function of Guantanamo. This is, in essence, a prisoner of war camp. It is not part of the criminal justice system. The folks at Guantanamo are being held because they are enemy combatants, not because they are being charged with crimes. This is supremely important distinction. America can hold these men so long as we are at war with Islamic terror groups. Think of it this way: during World War II, no one would have suggested that the Allies had to release all German POWs unless they were charged with crimes, but that is what Postel is saying in the article. Now it is true that some of the detainees are charged with crimes. Those who were involved in 9-11 committed criminal acts in the USA and can be so charged. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the rest of the POWs must be released. Only the end of the war will achieve that.
Second, the idea that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool is a joke, a political construct used by both Obama and Joe Biden and other Democrats for years prior to 2008. It is, however, not true. Oh, I do not doubt that al Qaeda mentions Guantanamo in its recruiting magazines on occasion. It is just that we have yet to meet even a single Jihadist who told us that he joined al Qaeda because of the existence of Guantanamo. After ten years of hearing how Guantanamo is such a great recruiting tool, we ought to have encountered at least one of these new terrorists.
There is more in the article that has no tether to reality, but let's move on to the bias for now. Here, the story gets even more bizarre. The article quotes Biden, General Powell and CIA Director John Brennan, among others, as to how the continued operation of Guantanamo hurts our national security. Postel argues that Guantanamo must be closed at once and lays out her flawed reasoning. But there is one very important piece of this puzzle which somehow is omitted. That's right. Our fearless reporter, Ms. Postel, fails to mention that president Obama campaigned throughout 2007 and 2008 on the issue of closing Guantanamo. Obama said he would close it as soon as possible. Indeed, when he took office, Obama issued an Executive Order directing that Guantanamo be closed within a year. Then Obama abandoned that plan. First, the closure was delayed by Obama. By 2012, Obama had completely dropped the idea of closing Guantanamo, this supposed al Qaeda recruiting tool. Ms. Postel never mentions Obama's failure to close the prison, Obama's breaking his promises regarding the prison, or even the reasons that Obama kept the prison open. In a bizarre turn, Obama changed American tactics in the War on Terror towards greatly increased drone strikes. Under Obama, the terrorists are likely to die from sudden and unexpected missile attacks coming from Predator drones and hardly likely at all to be taken prisoner. Obama has tried to minimize the issue of Guantanamo by just killing the jihadists and anyone else who happens to be unfortunate to be nearby rather than taking these folks prisoner.
I wonder if Ms. Postel has ever considered whether or not potential recruits for al Qaeda would be more inspired to join by hundreds of people killed in missile strikes or by some people being held prisoner in Guantanamo.
But, back to bias: if Ms. Postel and the left is so outraged by the continued existence of Guantamo, how can she write an article and fail to mention that Obama broke his promise to close the place down after making it such a big campaign issue? The answer is obvious: Ms. Postel does not want to do or say anything that might make Obama look bad. She is the personification of the bias of the mainstream media.
So, why would I call this surreal? First of all, Postel operates on a complete misunderstanding of the function of Guantanamo. This is, in essence, a prisoner of war camp. It is not part of the criminal justice system. The folks at Guantanamo are being held because they are enemy combatants, not because they are being charged with crimes. This is supremely important distinction. America can hold these men so long as we are at war with Islamic terror groups. Think of it this way: during World War II, no one would have suggested that the Allies had to release all German POWs unless they were charged with crimes, but that is what Postel is saying in the article. Now it is true that some of the detainees are charged with crimes. Those who were involved in 9-11 committed criminal acts in the USA and can be so charged. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the rest of the POWs must be released. Only the end of the war will achieve that.
Second, the idea that Guantanamo is a recruiting tool is a joke, a political construct used by both Obama and Joe Biden and other Democrats for years prior to 2008. It is, however, not true. Oh, I do not doubt that al Qaeda mentions Guantanamo in its recruiting magazines on occasion. It is just that we have yet to meet even a single Jihadist who told us that he joined al Qaeda because of the existence of Guantanamo. After ten years of hearing how Guantanamo is such a great recruiting tool, we ought to have encountered at least one of these new terrorists.
There is more in the article that has no tether to reality, but let's move on to the bias for now. Here, the story gets even more bizarre. The article quotes Biden, General Powell and CIA Director John Brennan, among others, as to how the continued operation of Guantanamo hurts our national security. Postel argues that Guantanamo must be closed at once and lays out her flawed reasoning. But there is one very important piece of this puzzle which somehow is omitted. That's right. Our fearless reporter, Ms. Postel, fails to mention that president Obama campaigned throughout 2007 and 2008 on the issue of closing Guantanamo. Obama said he would close it as soon as possible. Indeed, when he took office, Obama issued an Executive Order directing that Guantanamo be closed within a year. Then Obama abandoned that plan. First, the closure was delayed by Obama. By 2012, Obama had completely dropped the idea of closing Guantanamo, this supposed al Qaeda recruiting tool. Ms. Postel never mentions Obama's failure to close the prison, Obama's breaking his promises regarding the prison, or even the reasons that Obama kept the prison open. In a bizarre turn, Obama changed American tactics in the War on Terror towards greatly increased drone strikes. Under Obama, the terrorists are likely to die from sudden and unexpected missile attacks coming from Predator drones and hardly likely at all to be taken prisoner. Obama has tried to minimize the issue of Guantanamo by just killing the jihadists and anyone else who happens to be unfortunate to be nearby rather than taking these folks prisoner.
I wonder if Ms. Postel has ever considered whether or not potential recruits for al Qaeda would be more inspired to join by hundreds of people killed in missile strikes or by some people being held prisoner in Guantanamo.
But, back to bias: if Ms. Postel and the left is so outraged by the continued existence of Guantamo, how can she write an article and fail to mention that Obama broke his promise to close the place down after making it such a big campaign issue? The answer is obvious: Ms. Postel does not want to do or say anything that might make Obama look bad. She is the personification of the bias of the mainstream media.
No comments:
Post a Comment