Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs Charles Stimson Weighs In On Gitmo
This afternoon Jed Babbin filled in for Hugh on his show. Mr. Stimson oversees how we handle the detainees held by our military, including those down in Guantanamo Bay. The following transcript is that interview. Pay careful attention to it because he is telling us the skinny of how we handle these people. In addition, he shows why this job is a headache with the Left screaming over the slightest problem with detainees. Certain members of the Left's leadership are still bringing up the three suicides that occurred down there. The various organizations committed to the same idiotic ideology the Left adheres too has stated that Gitmo is "unlivable," "cruel," and "brutal."
JB: We've got to talk to someone who is responsible for one of the gravest responsibilities we have in the War On Terror. My very good friend, Deputy Assisant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, Charles Stimson. He's a Navy judge advocate. He's been a defense attorney, a former federal prosecutor. Mr. Stimson, thanks very much for joining us today.
CS: Jed, it's my pleasure. Call me Cully, please.
JB: Well, I'll take you up on that. Cully, thank you much. And let's just start out with that. I mean, you're not exactly a resume builder. Why'd you take this crazy job? It's a tough place to be.
CS: Look, we're at war, and everyone wants to get involved and do what they can do. Public service is an honor, it's a privilege. These are tough issues. This administration was attacked on 9/11. We were attacked in previous administrations. It's just that this administration decided to take it to our enemy. And you know, we were fortunate enough to catch some of our enemy, and we have some of those down in Guantanamo. And that's why I took the job. I like a challenge.
JB: Well, God bless you for it. That's a tough place to be, sir. Anyway, just real briefly, who are these guys? How many of them are there? What kinds of people are there?
CS: Right now, we have approximately 460 terrorists down in Guantanamo, and these are bomb makers, intel guys...you listen to the left, and the other quarters that say just cooks and all the rest of it, these people are the engine of al Qaeda and the Taliban. They're the fighters, the warriors, the thinkers. We've got some really smart, crafty guys down there, and they are our enemy, and you can just go down there. I want you to go down, Jed. Come down with me. Take a look at these guys in the eye. They are evil. And that's good that they're down there. They need to be detained.
JB: I'll be glad to take you up on that. I wish I could go on the troop going tomorrow, but I'm going to be substituting for Michael Medved on his show. But I'd love to get down there with you ASAP. Let's talk about what we hear from the left. I mean, every day, it seems like you're being bombarded by the Washington Post...let's put these guys in the criminal justice system. Mr. Stimson, you're a former federal prosecutor, you're a real live lawyer. Why shouldn't we put these guys in the criminal justice system?
CS: Well, I do get bombarded, and I listen to the old media hanker on about...I call them the try 'em or set 'em free crowd. And the fact is, Jed, that they are attempting through repetition to create rights for terrorists that simply do not exist. In fact, they want to create more rights for terrorists than for our own soldiers. Let me give you a perfect example. During war, as you know, and as your excellent article from June 15th pointed out, a nation is entitled, throughout the duration of the conflict, to detain its enemy. Period. You don't get them a quarter to then call their lawyer. You don't have to give them a trial. You know, when we detained the Nazis during World War II, they didn't get a trial. They didn't get lawyers. They didn't get anything. And they certainly didn't know when the conflict was going to end. So why is that any different when we've detained terrorists in this war? Well, it's not. What has happened is because of Court TV, because of the OJ Simpsonization of this country, this defense bar, these rabid defense lawyers, believe that if they repeat it enough times, that everyone's going to believe that well, yeah, that sort of sounds reasonable. People should get a trial. A trial, a criminal trial, is for a person who has committed a criminal act, and they are punished, and are held in jail as a result of violating the law and doing a criminal act. Under the law of war, long established, when you detain your enemy, you detain them for the purpose of keeping them off the battlefield, and killing again, until the end of the conflict. So here's the rub. People say well, we don't know when the conflict is going to end. So what they suggest...
JB: Pardon me, but so what?
CS: Yeah, exactly. I mean, like you said in your article, we have the right to detain them until 2525, if we want to. I mean, that is the law of war. If you want to change the law of war, well then you now have some other spade work to do.
JB: Well, let's talk about that, because the debate seems to be shifting, and when we're talking about Europe, I correspond with a lot of folks over there, especially in Britain, and those guys are always telling me well, you're denying them rights, you're denying them human rights. What does the world community expect us to do when we capture committed terrorists?
CS: You know, I had the privilege of taking both European delegations to Guantanamo. Not only the organization for security cooperation in Europe, but the trans-Atlantic policy network. And you're right. The debate is shifting. The debate now among serious people is what does the world community do with committed terrorists? You can't...you don't have to try them for criminal law, and often times, countries don't have laws on the books to try them. You can't let them free, because as we know when we do let some of them free, they come back and kill Americans. So what do we do? I have a letter in my hand from James Ellis, and he is a member of the European parliament. And he wrote me a thank you note after the trip he went on, earlier this Spring. And he says, "it seems to me that until the issue of what happens to detainees is resolved, the closing of Guantanamo could make the war on terrorism more difficult, and ultimately more dangerous for our citizens." That's where Europe is going.
JB: Well, I hope you offered him an honorary U.S. citizenship, because he's probably going to get thrown out of Europe for saying something like that.
CS: Well, he's not popular, I'm sure, for making that comment, and nor is the person from the Belgian delegation that went down, that we took, who said, "at the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons." That's what Europeans...that's what serious Europeans know.
JB: Yeah, but Belgians? I mean, they're just French wannabes. They didn't even make the grade. They're actually saying things like that? I mean, in all seriousness, this is astonishing from some of the greatest liberals, the most dedicated liberals in Europe.
CS: Belgium's a great country. I'm sure you're just joshing. Look, this detention facility is the most transparent facility in the world. It had over a thousand...one and four zeros, media trips down there, media down there. 400 different outlets. I'm talking about Al Jazeera, BBC, China News, Russian news, every major European country. I mean, they have a constant presence down there. You don't hear any bad news stories coming from them. Why is that?
JB: Well, wait a minute. Buy why are you going to just go down there with all of those guys, because a lot of them are just going to say well, you're just showing us what you want us to see, and we don't believe you, because you're hiding stuff.
CS: We...this is a detention facility. We have terrorists locked up. And we balance security interests with transparency. And so, we can point to, every day...almost every day, between 2002 and now, when the media either has a trip there, or is planning a trip there. I mean, virtually every week, media is down there. So I don't see that happening in detention facilities around this country or around in Europe.
JB: Well, absolutely.
CS: This is the most visited, most scrutinized detention facility in the world. Those soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines down there are really fighting hard, and doing the right thing. And you'll see it when you go down there.
JB: I will be glad to go back down with you any time we can break loose and go down there. 30 seconds left, Cully. Tell me what you think the future is for Gitmo in legal terms, in this coming year.
CS: Well, as the President said, he'd like to close it, but we have to wait on a few things. The Hamdan decision, which will most likely come down next week, will decide whether we can gear up military commissions. But you know, as you said in your article, there is no reasonable alternative to Guantanamo. And so, what do you do with committed terrorists? And the answer is, you detain them for the duration of the conflict, and you transfer some back to countries and ask them to take responsibility for their own terrorists.
JB: Charles Stimson, deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs, thanks very much for joining us.
He is correct. The steps being taken now are the best we have. And ultimately the goal of such an operation is as he states: It it to keep the enemy from reentering the battlefield. We may not be able to kill all of these people, but we can hold them until doomsday, right now. Mr. Stimson brought up Hamdan at the end, and he is correct that it is key to this part of the Global War On Terror.
If it is decided incorrectly, there will be no tribunals. That means anyone we want to keep with has to go through our criminal courts--as Moussaoui did--or as Mr. Stimson suggests, send them home on the hope that their home countries will prosecute them. (I would not hold my breath on that idea, depending on the nation in question.) Hamdan is indeed key to this whole war. And for that I am holding my breath; holding it in hopes that Justice Anthony Kennedy is not the swing vote this time around, too.
These people are not citizens of the United States, and therefore have no right to our criminal justice system. Furthermore, as they are being held as enemy combatants, they should (and hopefully will be) run through military tribunals. These people are being held in the best possible conditions, have been given the best care, and has special religious needs met. There is no torture occurring at Gitmo. Abu Ghraib was an abuse case, not torture.
It is interesting to see that in relation to our enemy, the Left seems to be the ones that are willing to afford them every courtesy available, and a few they have to whine for. We have them today beginning a debate over a withdrawal of troops in the senate. Two initiatives recently defeated in both houses were calling for that. They are the ones who have been fighting against our efforts for a majority of this war. They seem to like them more than us. Funny that as our enemy is more than willing to behead them, too.
Marcie
This afternoon Jed Babbin filled in for Hugh on his show. Mr. Stimson oversees how we handle the detainees held by our military, including those down in Guantanamo Bay. The following transcript is that interview. Pay careful attention to it because he is telling us the skinny of how we handle these people. In addition, he shows why this job is a headache with the Left screaming over the slightest problem with detainees. Certain members of the Left's leadership are still bringing up the three suicides that occurred down there. The various organizations committed to the same idiotic ideology the Left adheres too has stated that Gitmo is "unlivable," "cruel," and "brutal."
JB: We've got to talk to someone who is responsible for one of the gravest responsibilities we have in the War On Terror. My very good friend, Deputy Assisant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, Charles Stimson. He's a Navy judge advocate. He's been a defense attorney, a former federal prosecutor. Mr. Stimson, thanks very much for joining us today.
CS: Jed, it's my pleasure. Call me Cully, please.
JB: Well, I'll take you up on that. Cully, thank you much. And let's just start out with that. I mean, you're not exactly a resume builder. Why'd you take this crazy job? It's a tough place to be.
CS: Look, we're at war, and everyone wants to get involved and do what they can do. Public service is an honor, it's a privilege. These are tough issues. This administration was attacked on 9/11. We were attacked in previous administrations. It's just that this administration decided to take it to our enemy. And you know, we were fortunate enough to catch some of our enemy, and we have some of those down in Guantanamo. And that's why I took the job. I like a challenge.
JB: Well, God bless you for it. That's a tough place to be, sir. Anyway, just real briefly, who are these guys? How many of them are there? What kinds of people are there?
CS: Right now, we have approximately 460 terrorists down in Guantanamo, and these are bomb makers, intel guys...you listen to the left, and the other quarters that say just cooks and all the rest of it, these people are the engine of al Qaeda and the Taliban. They're the fighters, the warriors, the thinkers. We've got some really smart, crafty guys down there, and they are our enemy, and you can just go down there. I want you to go down, Jed. Come down with me. Take a look at these guys in the eye. They are evil. And that's good that they're down there. They need to be detained.
JB: I'll be glad to take you up on that. I wish I could go on the troop going tomorrow, but I'm going to be substituting for Michael Medved on his show. But I'd love to get down there with you ASAP. Let's talk about what we hear from the left. I mean, every day, it seems like you're being bombarded by the Washington Post...let's put these guys in the criminal justice system. Mr. Stimson, you're a former federal prosecutor, you're a real live lawyer. Why shouldn't we put these guys in the criminal justice system?
CS: Well, I do get bombarded, and I listen to the old media hanker on about...I call them the try 'em or set 'em free crowd. And the fact is, Jed, that they are attempting through repetition to create rights for terrorists that simply do not exist. In fact, they want to create more rights for terrorists than for our own soldiers. Let me give you a perfect example. During war, as you know, and as your excellent article from June 15th pointed out, a nation is entitled, throughout the duration of the conflict, to detain its enemy. Period. You don't get them a quarter to then call their lawyer. You don't have to give them a trial. You know, when we detained the Nazis during World War II, they didn't get a trial. They didn't get lawyers. They didn't get anything. And they certainly didn't know when the conflict was going to end. So why is that any different when we've detained terrorists in this war? Well, it's not. What has happened is because of Court TV, because of the OJ Simpsonization of this country, this defense bar, these rabid defense lawyers, believe that if they repeat it enough times, that everyone's going to believe that well, yeah, that sort of sounds reasonable. People should get a trial. A trial, a criminal trial, is for a person who has committed a criminal act, and they are punished, and are held in jail as a result of violating the law and doing a criminal act. Under the law of war, long established, when you detain your enemy, you detain them for the purpose of keeping them off the battlefield, and killing again, until the end of the conflict. So here's the rub. People say well, we don't know when the conflict is going to end. So what they suggest...
JB: Pardon me, but so what?
CS: Yeah, exactly. I mean, like you said in your article, we have the right to detain them until 2525, if we want to. I mean, that is the law of war. If you want to change the law of war, well then you now have some other spade work to do.
JB: Well, let's talk about that, because the debate seems to be shifting, and when we're talking about Europe, I correspond with a lot of folks over there, especially in Britain, and those guys are always telling me well, you're denying them rights, you're denying them human rights. What does the world community expect us to do when we capture committed terrorists?
CS: You know, I had the privilege of taking both European delegations to Guantanamo. Not only the organization for security cooperation in Europe, but the trans-Atlantic policy network. And you're right. The debate is shifting. The debate now among serious people is what does the world community do with committed terrorists? You can't...you don't have to try them for criminal law, and often times, countries don't have laws on the books to try them. You can't let them free, because as we know when we do let some of them free, they come back and kill Americans. So what do we do? I have a letter in my hand from James Ellis, and he is a member of the European parliament. And he wrote me a thank you note after the trip he went on, earlier this Spring. And he says, "it seems to me that until the issue of what happens to detainees is resolved, the closing of Guantanamo could make the war on terrorism more difficult, and ultimately more dangerous for our citizens." That's where Europe is going.
JB: Well, I hope you offered him an honorary U.S. citizenship, because he's probably going to get thrown out of Europe for saying something like that.
CS: Well, he's not popular, I'm sure, for making that comment, and nor is the person from the Belgian delegation that went down, that we took, who said, "at the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons." That's what Europeans...that's what serious Europeans know.
JB: Yeah, but Belgians? I mean, they're just French wannabes. They didn't even make the grade. They're actually saying things like that? I mean, in all seriousness, this is astonishing from some of the greatest liberals, the most dedicated liberals in Europe.
CS: Belgium's a great country. I'm sure you're just joshing. Look, this detention facility is the most transparent facility in the world. It had over a thousand...one and four zeros, media trips down there, media down there. 400 different outlets. I'm talking about Al Jazeera, BBC, China News, Russian news, every major European country. I mean, they have a constant presence down there. You don't hear any bad news stories coming from them. Why is that?
JB: Well, wait a minute. Buy why are you going to just go down there with all of those guys, because a lot of them are just going to say well, you're just showing us what you want us to see, and we don't believe you, because you're hiding stuff.
CS: We...this is a detention facility. We have terrorists locked up. And we balance security interests with transparency. And so, we can point to, every day...almost every day, between 2002 and now, when the media either has a trip there, or is planning a trip there. I mean, virtually every week, media is down there. So I don't see that happening in detention facilities around this country or around in Europe.
JB: Well, absolutely.
CS: This is the most visited, most scrutinized detention facility in the world. Those soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines down there are really fighting hard, and doing the right thing. And you'll see it when you go down there.
JB: I will be glad to go back down with you any time we can break loose and go down there. 30 seconds left, Cully. Tell me what you think the future is for Gitmo in legal terms, in this coming year.
CS: Well, as the President said, he'd like to close it, but we have to wait on a few things. The Hamdan decision, which will most likely come down next week, will decide whether we can gear up military commissions. But you know, as you said in your article, there is no reasonable alternative to Guantanamo. And so, what do you do with committed terrorists? And the answer is, you detain them for the duration of the conflict, and you transfer some back to countries and ask them to take responsibility for their own terrorists.
JB: Charles Stimson, deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs, thanks very much for joining us.
He is correct. The steps being taken now are the best we have. And ultimately the goal of such an operation is as he states: It it to keep the enemy from reentering the battlefield. We may not be able to kill all of these people, but we can hold them until doomsday, right now. Mr. Stimson brought up Hamdan at the end, and he is correct that it is key to this part of the Global War On Terror.
If it is decided incorrectly, there will be no tribunals. That means anyone we want to keep with has to go through our criminal courts--as Moussaoui did--or as Mr. Stimson suggests, send them home on the hope that their home countries will prosecute them. (I would not hold my breath on that idea, depending on the nation in question.) Hamdan is indeed key to this whole war. And for that I am holding my breath; holding it in hopes that Justice Anthony Kennedy is not the swing vote this time around, too.
These people are not citizens of the United States, and therefore have no right to our criminal justice system. Furthermore, as they are being held as enemy combatants, they should (and hopefully will be) run through military tribunals. These people are being held in the best possible conditions, have been given the best care, and has special religious needs met. There is no torture occurring at Gitmo. Abu Ghraib was an abuse case, not torture.
It is interesting to see that in relation to our enemy, the Left seems to be the ones that are willing to afford them every courtesy available, and a few they have to whine for. We have them today beginning a debate over a withdrawal of troops in the senate. Two initiatives recently defeated in both houses were calling for that. They are the ones who have been fighting against our efforts for a majority of this war. They seem to like them more than us. Funny that as our enemy is more than willing to behead them, too.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home