Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for the 'Guantanamo' Category

July 2nd 2009

Unequal Justice For All


ostile, America-hating jihadists captured in battles in Afghanistan were shown U.S. hospitality in Guantanamo – given Qur’ans and a proper Muslim diet, offered exercise and prayer time.  Each individual’s case was carefully researched and heard, a lawyer by the jihadist’s side to represent his interests.  Many were simply freed after this process, others ascertained judiciously to be too dangerous and returned to their cells.

And for this process, Leftists in America and anti-Americans around the world howled and spat and said vile things about our country and our president.  Even our new president joined in the condemning chorus, staking out the most left-wing of all candidates’ position on the matter.

Now, with the capture of a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, we have a sad and tragic opportunity to measure the behavior of America against the behavior of those who fight us on the battlefield, betray us on our shores, and denigrate us from the comfort of their protected European easy chairs.

We certainly can’t expect anything approaching equal treatment and respect from those jihadist thugs who captured the soldier. Here’s what WaPo reports on them:

“Our leaders have not decided on the fate of this soldier.” the AFP quoted the Haqqani commander, identified only as Bahram, as saying. “They will decide on his fate and soon we will present video tapes of the coalition soldier and our demand to media.”

So Haqqani leaders, not a tribunal, will decide his fate.  And he will be videotaped and used as a propaganda tool, a violation of the Geneva accords.  And they will use the soldier to make demands of us, rather than treat him as a prisoner of war.  Anyone who has followed these sorts of cases has to fear for the life of this soldier; I hope that is not the case, but he has suffered the great misfortune of being captured by people who are not Americans.

Check out the several stories posted on Memeorandum about this breaking event, and you will find no Leftist outlets or blogs listed; you will not be able to link over to any stories or posts from the Left, calling for justice and demanding compliance with Geneva. They are uninterested, just as they are suddenly uninterested in civilian deaths in Iraq or military operations in Afghanistan.  Hypocrites.

Don’t count on this story even breaking through the Michael Jackson storm in the European press, obsessed as it is with deviant behaviors – especially by Americans.

Those who demanded full rights don’t even much care about this soldier’s right to life.  Guantanamo was all about serving a purpose other than protecting jihadists; it was about destroying a presidency and denigrating America, nothing more – and the Left’s disinterest in the fate of this soldier is all the proof we need.



March 19th 2009

Holder Opens Door To Terrorists


errorists … no wait, let me look up the right word … uh, man-caused disaster causers … may soon be released by our Atty Gen onto our shores, in a move that’s just sure to increase our safety.  (Why didn’t Bush think of that?  He was sooo concerned about terror … uh, man-caused disasters.)  Here’s the report:

Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday. …

Holder told reporters at the Justice Department that the administration’s review, made on a case-by-case basis, would determine whether the prisoners need to be put on trial or whether they can be released.

“For those who are in that second category, who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have. Among them is the possibility that we could release them into this country,” he said. (Reuters)

That’s such a swell idea!  We can show them our way of life and how open and tolerant we are, and it’s just sure as fleas on dogs to win them over to our side, where they’ll be nice, complacent citizens contributing to the national well-being.

Or they just might blow a bunch of us up.

Tough call – but apparently an easier call for Holder to make than the call to keep open the one place on the planet that’s perfect for these thugs, Guantanamo.  And if the Islamists every stop their war against us and agree to live in peace, we can let them go, just like we let go of our German, Italian and Japanese prisoners when WWII ended.

hat-tip: Infidels are Cool


1 Comment »

March 10th 2009

Libs Laughably, Dangerously Wrong Again


adge, honey, wouldya file this story in the “Is anyone out there the least bit surprised?” file for me, OK?

WASHINGTON – The Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration’s efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007. Rasoul is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a nom de guerre that Pentagon and intelligence officials say is used by a Taliban leader who is in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan.

The officials, who spoke anonymously because they are not authorized to release the information, said Rasoul has joined a growing faction of former Guantanamo prisoners who have rejoined militant groups and taken action against U.S. interests. Pentagon officials have said that as many as 60 former detainees have resurfaced on foreign battlefields. (AP)

This isn’t Bond plus one. Ol’ 008 didn’t slip out of prison using fabu gizmos from Q. He just packed his bag and was flown out, courtesy of the U.S., due to the sheer insanity and never-ending shrillness of the Libs, a torture powerful enough to even break George W. Bush.

As I’ve pointed out before, these forces of stupidity don’t bother to answer the most basic questions. In this case, the question is, “If one of our soldiers was released from a Taliban prison, would he go back to fight?” After the laughter dies down about the idea of a Taliban actually letting one of our guys out, even Libs would have to admit the answer is “no.” So why would they expect a Taliban to do any differently?

Rasoul is heading up Taliban ops in Southern Afghanistan where Obama the Liberator (of Guantanamo, no Afghanistan) is set to send 35,000 of our troops shortly. The former detainee will then set about killing as many Americans as he possibly can, something that would have been impossible for him to do if he were still basking in the Caribbean.

This is exactly why in every war we have held prisoners of war in detention until hostilities are over, and why we’ve just put the particularly nasty ones up against a wall and shot them dead.

But don’t expect a Lib to understand the outrage of freeing enemy prisoners so they can kill our soldiers. No, they’d rather have American blood on their hands than have a Geneva Conventions-violating jihadist terrorist deprived of due process they’re not even due.



February 7th 2009

Fair Treatment Of Prisoners


e hear a lot about the prisoners in the war on terror, folks like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his buddies in Guantanamo, but we hear precious little about people like Piotr Stanczak, who suffer the great misfortune of being captured by the other side.

As the new administration moves forward with its plan to close the prison that is the world’s best option for holding the world’s most disgusting criminals, it does so in the face of reason, ignoring the threat jihadists pose, which they demonstrated most recently with their handling of Stanczak. Why is this crazed charade moving forward?

Well, as near as I can tell it’s because the Leftists of the world have united in orange jumpsuits to howl in protest that America is protecting the West from those who would destroy it.

After years of reading Leftist drivel against Guantanamo, it’s all really boiled down to policy – the trials aren’t happening fast enough. Sure, the hardcore left still equates Guantanamo with torture – against overwhelming evidence of humane treatment and limited, temporary use of techniques that are not life-threatening against only a few of the most important intelligence targets … who happen to also be the most deadly of the prisoners.  Yet the symbol-driven Obama admin proceeds with its focus on the facility – the perceived need to close the prison – giving itself a terribly thorny problem that is nothing more than Leftist hype.

This situation is uniquely driven by the left. No one else is protesting or raising issues. Oh, sure, there’s a periodic peep of protest from the U.N., but do a search for “Guantanamo” at the U.N. News Center and you get nothing.  Even though the housing of prisoners in Guantanamo doesn’t shake the world, it particularly shakes the American anti-Bush, anti-war Left, and Obama is listening.

Do you think the American anti-Bush, anti-war Left will protest how another prisoner in the war on terror, Piotr Stanczak, was handled?

A Taleban group in Pakistan is reportedly claiming to have killed a Polish engineer, Piotr Stanczak, who was kidnapped in September last year.

Reports quote a Taleban spokesman as saying he was killed after a deadline expired for the Pakistani government to free captured militants.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Warsaw had received “informal confirmation” that the man was killed.

Pakistani security officials said they could not confirm the Taleban claim.

A Taleban spokesman said Mr Stanczak was beheaded after a deadline expired on Friday for the release of a number of militants in government hands, Reuters reported.

“We have killed the man after authorities refused to release our colleagues,” the spokesman, calling himself Mohammed, told Reuters. (BBC)

Let’s review this terrible news.  Stanczak was not an enemy hostile; he was abducted while doing survey work for the Pakistani oil ministry 40 miles from Islamabad, far from the front.  He was held under conditions we will never know because the Red Cross/Crescent was not allowed access to the facility … if we can even call it a “facility.”  He was held without trial – and murdered without trial.  His death was, to put it mildly, inhumane.  Say what you will, that is not the portrait of a Guantanamo detainee’s life.

The Left will not mourn the death of Piotr Stanczak.  Obama will not consider the contrasts between his ordeal and the daily life of Guantanamo detainees.  He won’t compare the innocence of Stanczak to the evil in the heart of the detainees.

Will nothing will be learned from Stanczak’s death? A few of us might memorialize him, but do any among us think his death will lead to more rational decision-making by the Obama administration?



January 28th 2009

Al-Oufi Proves It: Libs Are Fools


o, the Obama admin is batting around the idea of moving the world’s worst terror-mongers out of Fidel Castros backyard and putting them in mine – specifically the Pendleton Marine base just south of my home. I’m with Rep. Duncan Hunter on that idea:

Camp Pendleton is a place where we train our Marines and sailors for combat. It is not a detention facility, nor should it be transformed into one. Any attempt to accommodate detainees at Camp Pendleton would create an unnecessary distraction for the Marine Corps and interfere with its primary mission, which is to combat terrorism. (source)

Yup. But Obama’s committed to closing the one place on earth that’s ideal for storing these creeps (if you don’t count Superman’s Fortress of Solitude), so they just might be coming to a military base near you.

Awful as that is, it’s better than letting them go, as Abu al-Hareth Muhammad [Muhammed?!  You mean like the Prophet of Peace?!] al-Oufi is proving.  (How do you like the photo of him?)

You remember Abu; he’s the guy who ended up in Guantamo because he was just stopping off at the Tastee Freez nowhere near the battlesite, and his attorneys argued loudly his innocence, so he was released back to his freedom-loving, terror-hating home state of Saudi Arabia.  The date of his release?  Sept. 11 (yes, 9/11!), 2007.

But when video of ol’ Abu being all al-Qaeda-like in Yemen surfaced this week, those of us with brains realized (the shock!) that the Lib’s charactization of this noble victim was just a wee bit off. 

Here’s the Abu that Seton Hall prof and detainee defender Mark Denbeaux  and his fellow asylum inmates saw, in Abu’s own words:

“I was on my way to Quetta, Pakistan, to help people, the refugees,” al-Oufi told a military panel at Guantanamo, according to a transcripts reviewed by The Associated Press. He explained that he was arrested along with many other Arabs and sold to U.S. forces for bounties. Al-Oufi insisted he had never set foot in Afghanistan. 

Yet we held poor Abu without charges or trial until all of our Cherished American Ideals were destroyed.  But wait … maybe Bush isn’t the worst president of all time; maybe he had it right! Because here’s what we’ve learned about poor, poor pitiful Abu:

On Wednesday, the SITE Intelligence Group, an organization that monitors extremist Web sites, provided a translation of al-Oufi’s biography contained in an online militant forum. The personal history was completely at odds with how al-Oufi had characterized himself as he tried to convince a panel of U.S. military officers at Guantanamo that he was an innocent man who had been swept up in Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. …

… [T]he biography said he had fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir before he was captured, and had narrowly escaped death when “an American rocket” hit a house in Afghanistan where he and 13 other mujahedeen were sleeping. Al-Oufi was the only survivor and “was not hit by even one piece of shrapnel.”

The biography tries to present al-Oufi in a heroic light, using flowery language.

“He continued fighting until Afghanistan fell into the hands of the Americans,” said the biography. “He could not help but go to Pakistan and wait there until the Taliban started anew, and then he would return. But Allah determined for our lion to be imprisoned.”

Huh. Go figger.

Will the ACLU, Denbeaux and their ilk learn from this? Of course they will!  They will learn new strategies that minimize the reality of the likes of Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi so they can continue to take the wrong side in this epic battle for the future of civilization.


No Comments yet »

January 25th 2009

Sunday Scan – January 25, ’09



‘ve been doing a bit of Facebook “wallfare” over Guantamo with liberal blogger Dan Chmielewski.  He knee-jerks on the subject, seeing Gitmo as a blight on America’s honor, without giving much more thought to the consequences of closing it other than disputing the recent report that 61 detainees released from Gitmo have been identified to be back at work trying to advance jihadism. Dan probably wouldn’t agree with this assessment of Gitmo, from a post on Civilian Irregular:

Our Nation is at war, and JTF-Guantanamo serves as an integral component of OPERATION Enduring Freedom. We are the model organization for safe and humane enemy combatant detention operations, and for the collection and dissemination of strategic intelligence supporting the Global War on Terror. We operate under the watchful gaze of the Nation and the world. We are a strategic asset operated by a highly trained and patriotic team of military and civilian professionals, dedicated to supporting our Nation’s interests in the Global War on Terror.

The post goes on to describe two reasons for keeping detainees at Gitmo. The first is gaining intelligence, which we all can understand and which has been written about ad nauseum from all sides of the political spectrum. The other is lawism, a new term for me.

If it weren’t for lawfare we could execute them when their intelligence value has been exhausted. Lawfare, according to Colonel Charles Dunlap,

describes a method of warfare where law is used as a means of realizing a military objective. There are many dimensions to lawfare, but the one ever more frequently embraced by U.S. opponents is a cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents. Rather than seeking battlefield victories, per se, challengers try to destroy the will to fight by undermining the public support that is indispensable when democracies like the U.S. conduct military interventions.”

We are struggling to find a way to combat lawfare without either providing terrorists with information they should not have, or stepping on the rights of American citizens.  We don’t have the solution, and we shouldn’t be forced to close Gitmo because of political deadlines until we have a viable lawfare strategy – and a strategy to keep ourselves safe from the damage these vicious animals can foist on us. Continue Reading »



January 22nd 2009

I, Not Obama, Have The Gitmo Solution


o “our ideals give us the moral high ground” to fight conniving, ruthless, bloodthirsty jihadists.  The POTUS said so himself when he signed the executive order today ending the CIA’s use of secret overseas prisons, banning “coercive” interrogation methods and closing the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year.

Details to come in six months; today’s event was for grandstanding purposes only.  Please  note the Dem affirmative action in action:  13 old white guys and one black guy.

But you know, that Gitmo thing has had me really worried. I mean, where are we supposed to put those guys if not in Fidel’s back yard? Then it struck me! There’s a simple and elegant answer.

The West Wing is very, very secure. Barry and Michelle, why not put all the Muhammeds and Abdulahs up as your house guests until you can find a better place for them?

After all, it was your bright idea to close the only good place in the world to keep those thugs.



June 19th 2008

A Lot Of "Allah Akbars" From Gunatanamo

It’s been a great week for our Guantanamo detainees. First Boumediene v. Bush, in which an activist SCOTUS decided foreign combatants who have never stepped foot in America deserved rights no nation anywhere, ever, have granted. Now this:

A military defense lawyer urged a Guantanamo judge to help restore America’s reputation by dropping attempted murder charges against an Afghan prisoner who was subjected to 14 consecutive days of sleep deprivation.

“You have an opportunity to restore just a bit of America’s lost luster,” Air Force Maj. David Frakt told the judge presiding in the war crimes case against Afghan prisoner Mohammed Jawad. (Rueters)

Jawad is in the Cuban clinker because he’s a combatant — he threw a grenade into a group of GIs — but his attorney thinks that’s no big deal, that America’s reputation is so tarnished by Jawad’s sleep deprivation that he ought to walk.

Imagine how much these thugs want Barack Obama to be elected, so they can be treated as lawbreakers instead of combatants, and arguments like Frakt’s can be emoted all over a bunch of juries who aren’t my peers or yours. If things break their way, they’ll be back on the battlefield in no time, trying to kill our boys.

Obama buttons would be a hot commodity in Guantanamo.


No Comments yet »

June 16th 2008

What Next For Guantanamo’s Bad Guys?

The Libs won, finally, after pushing pig-headedly through every logical obstacle placed before them, and got the men of Guantanamo, who never saw a provision of the Geneva Conventions they didn’t mind breaking, rights beyond what we’ve ever offered foreign enemy combatants before.

Now that a few hundred habeas hearings are going to be scheduled before federal judges, what possible hope do we have that the judges will handle the matter well? As Andy McCarthy points out today at The Corner, we don’t trust judges enough with criminal cases to let them make habeas decisions without reams of guidance and piles of precedence, there are no such safety brakes in place to guide judges in the proper handling of foreign enemy combatants. McCarthy points out the risks of this situation:

By comparison, (a) alien unlawful enemy combatants are more serious threats to public safety (indeed, to national security) than drug dealers and violent felons; (b) alien unlawful enemy combatants are also not defendants accused of crimes (they’re hostile operatives captured in military operations overwhelming authorized by Congress following the mass-killing of nearly 3000 Americans on 9/11) and, therefore, they are not entitled in detention hearings to the constitutional presumption of innocence that applies in civilian prosecutions (by contrast, they do get the presumption of innocence if charged with war crimes); and (c) judges have no institutional competence in determining the status of enemy combatants, a war power the framers committed to the political branches.

McCarthy proposes a narrow detention procedure law for these cases, which could be modeled on the federal pretrial detention statute, followed by a national security court, but sees the problems inherent in the suggestion. The Left has fought tooth and nail to minimize the risk posed by the Guantanamo detainees and to give them undeserved legal rights, and they’re not about to settle for a Pyhrric victory this close to the finish line.

Even with all the guidance before them, liberal judges often make horrible habeas decisions, and little itty bitty bad guys catch a break as a result. It would be nice to say “we can’t allow such mistakes to happen with the detainees,” but that’s ridiculous. We are going to allow such mistakes to happen thanks to the SCOTUS ruling, and we are going to deal with the consequences — in this case, the deaths of our soldiers, our allies, or us.

I share McCarthy’s concern that when that happens, Obama and the other politicians who brought us to this point will be shielded by the courts. Let’s hope that as that happens, the communicators on our side will be more effective than the Bush communications team, and the American people will be reminded that it was politicians on the left, not the courts, that have the greatest measure of responsibility.

hat-tip: memeorandum


No Comments yet »

June 14th 2008

Obama Largely To Blame For SCOTUS Guantanamo Ruling

John McCain’s promise to close Guantanamo is one strike against him in my playbook, but I can’t find a quarrel with his position on yesterday’s awful Supreme Court decision extending habeas corpus to terrorist foreign combatants.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday sharply denounced a Supreme Court decision that gave suspected terrorist detainees a right to seek their release in federal courts.

“I think it’s one of the worst decisions in history,” McCain said. “It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution.” …

McCain … attacked the decision, saying the law he helped write “made it very clear that these are enemy combatants, they are not citizens, they do not have the rights of citizens.”

He might have thought about that before calling for the closing of the prison, so his slam of the SCOTUS decision rings a bit hollow. But in this political year, I’ll take it gladly — especially when compared to Obama’s reaction.

Of course, I haven’t found a reaction from Obama, which isn’t that surprising because he is probably considering his options … none of them too attractive … before getting someone to write words for him to deliver smoothly from his teleprompter.

Here’s the cause of his troubles:

Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama

(January 28, 2008) — More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s presidential bid.

The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration’s detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to “restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community.” The attorneys are representing the detainees in habeas corpus lawsuits, which are efforts to get individual hearings before federal judges in order to challenge the basis for their indefinite imprisonment without trial.

The attorneys praised Obama for being a leader in an unsuccessful fight in the fall of 2006 to block Congress from enacting a law stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo detainee lawsuits. The constitutionality of that law, which was part of the Military Commissions Act, is now being challenged before the Supreme Court in one of the most closely-watched cases this term.

“When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us,” they wrote. “Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. … Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.”

(Read the whole article here.)

We know how that turned out, so we can thank Obama for the mess the five Sept. 10-think judges on the SCOTUS have put us in.

We know what Obama is feeling about the decision: Elation. He worked hard to achieve giving enemy combatants the opportunity to use our courts as a weapon of war — a right we did not extend to the thousands of Nazi prisoners of war who were on our land, not offshore in Cuba. But Obama’s work was in the fall of ’06 — basically a decade or so ago in Obama Time. Now that he’s a general election candidate, he’ll have to figure out how to fake a different, less hardcore hard-left response to use when he’s asked for a response to the decision.

One thing is for certain: He will work hard to separate himself from the 80 volunteer Guantanamo lawyers. The bodies on the other side of the separated from Obama gap are becoming legion; I wonder if there’s room for 80 more.


No Comments yet »

Next »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

napoleon hill law of success free ebook