Monday, November 10, 2008

Why Guantanamo Bay Should Not Be Closed


Most liberals have no sympathy for babies who are deliberately delivered prematurely and left to die or babies killed through the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion. But many of these same liberals, including leftist ‘human rights’ groups, which believe killing an innocent unborn child is a human right, are deeply concerned over the plight of terrorist suspects caught on battlefields fighting for the Taliban or al-Qaeda who are now detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Despite charges of poor treatment, the Pentagon actually spends $2.5 million each year to make sure the detainees are provided with Korans, prayer rugs, special meals for Muslims, exercise and better medical care than many American citizens receive.

The detainees are officially classified as ‘unlawful enemy combatants, not prisoners of war (POWs), since they violated the Geneva Conventions laws of war. They wore no uniforms or insignia. They refused to carry their weapons openly. They operated under no military hierarchy and represented no government. Granting them the privileges of the Geneva Conventions and the United States Court system would encourage further illegal behavior and endanger both civilians and soldiers in future conflicts.

President-elect Obama plans to release some of these detainees immediately. Some will go back to the countries where they were caught for rehabilitation and release. Hundreds of others will be shipped to the United States to face trials in our criminal courts, where no doubt hundreds of ACLU lawyers will be more than happy to defend them and help them to get released so they can get back to killing U.S. soldiers, committing acts of terrorism and generally making war on the United States and our allies. Already, every detainee at Guantanamo has an average of at least two lawyers. The United States has extended unprecedented legal rights to our enemies.

Laurence Tribe, an Obama legal adviser, said closing the prison is a top priority. Many questions still need to be answered about how the detainees will be handled. Will they be tried in regular criminal courts, in military tribunals or a hybrid of the two? Many Democrats insist that these terrorist suspects be accorded full rights under the United States Constitution as a U.S. citizen would.

Other questions yet to be answered are:

1.) Will the rules of evidence be the same as in a regular criminal court. This may lead to some of the detainees being acquitted due to a technicality, like the murderers Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were. (Ayers and Dohrn founders of the domestic terrorist group called the Weathermen. Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet the candidate night in their home as Mr. Obama was beginning his political career.)

2.) Will the defendants have the right to confront witnesses? This would mean that undercover CIA officers and informers may have to take the witness stand. This would jeopardize their cover and reveal classified intelligence tactics.

[With the leftists in charge, I think the most dangerous job in the world right now is that of a CIA undercover operative. It will probably be easier than ever for our enemies to infiltrate the United States government. Leftists hate the CIA and would rejoice in the killing of our agents.]

President-elect Obama has promised Guantanamo Bay will close. I believe it will, although there is no reason it should. Even if the detainees were granted POW status, which they don’t deserve, the Geneva Conventions require only that they be released ‘at the end of hostilities’. These prisoners should not be released until the conflict in Afghanistan has ended.

Liberals support a woman’s right to choose to kill her unborn children. One of the reasons they give is that we can’t guarantee that the innocent baby we seek to protect won’t become a criminal. Yet these same liberals wring their hands over the treatment of people who have already proven they are bent on killing us! Why kill the innocent and protect the guilty?
It would be tragic, but not surprising, if President Obama helps to release the future participants in a 9-11 style attack on the United States or one of our allies. I doubt most Americans who supported President-elect Obama understood the significance of this issue before they elected him.

8 comments:

RomanCatholic Deacon said...

I guess they want to empty Guantanamo so that there's a place for us Pro-Lifer's to be detained after we picket and pray at the killing centers around the USA! I'm sure the new leader will sign an executive order making it a crime to pray and counsel at the abortion mills. Or maybe FOCA will do that. These are trying times but God has won! Divine Justice will soon descend upon the sick and evil world! Come, Lord Jesus!

Carlos Echevarria said...

Father, thank you for, once again, speaking so eloquently speaking the truth.

What a sad state of affair when enemies of the Republic are affored more care, concern and rights than unborn citizens inside the wombs of Americans!!!

It is Orwellian, at best.

God Bless you, Father.

Jesse Williamson said...

Expel the Rotten Apples
During their most recent conference in Baltimore, the bishops of the Catholic Church were scrambling for ideas in their quest for making reparations after November’s tragic election results. They were looking for ideas of how they could better communicate Catholic ideals and doctrine to an inattentive flock that overwhelmingly supported the pro-abortion candidate, Barrack Obama. It is definitely too late for this time around, the toothpaste is entirely out of the tube. The bishops failed miserably in conveying the proper message, assuming they even tried. For years parishioners have sat in the pews and listened to feel-good homilies, and have heard nothing of evil, sin, and the importance of living a righteous life. The bishops may presently be trying to build some consensus just to save face.
There is a solution. If not a complete solution; it is at least an important starting point. Immediately excommunicate Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and any other political operative that claims fellowship with both the pro-abortion crowd and the Catholic Church. The Church’s position regarding the sanctity of life is clear. There is no need to repeat it here. What does appear to be unclear to the bishops is the meaning of communion.
The practice of Holy Communion in the Church began with Christ at the last supper. It expressed a fellowship with Christ and His disciples and of the disciples with one another. That meant that they shared not only fellowship, but common beliefs, unity, concord and agreement.
By allowing the pro-abortion politicians to continue to share the Eucharist with Catholics whose actions are in alignment with Church teachings is an insult to the faithful, a bad example, and to simplify by example; the deliberate placement of rotten apples in the barrel. We often look up to politicians for leadership, guidance and example. By not excommunicating these rogues, the bishops are diminishing the piety of the truly faithful.
The bishops spoke of the possible need to close the Catholic hospitals rather than being forced to perform abortions. That is a drastic step and may become necessary. But why not start with a less costly step to show that they are really serious? The bishops must act swiftly to excommunicate these pro-abortion politicians to redeem themselves and to restore true Christian brotherhood to the loyal members of the Catholic Church.

Jesse E. Williamson

Jesse Williamson said...

I Have A Dream
On August 28, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., the Reverend Martin Luther King, Junior delivered a speech to more than 250,000 persons present that became one of the greatest and notable speeches in history and the top American speech of the 20th century. The essence of Dr. King’s speech was captured in one sentence wherein he stated, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Millions of people thought that the fulfillment of that speech occurred 45 years later in the election of Barrack Hussein Obama as the 44th president of the United States. The majority of voters made that event happen. But was Barrack Obama’s victory actually a fulfillment of that speech? I do not think so. Dr. King eloquently stated that the dream was for a person to be judged by inner character, not by skin color. In this election, masses voted for Obama for no other reason than for skin color. This can hardly be called a fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream.

Never in the entire history of the United States has there been elected a man of whom so little is known. His history in the Illinois legislature and in the U. S. Senate has been dismal. Most of his historical records including his school, law practice, medical and even birth records are sealed and not available to public scrutiny. In those times that he did vote in support of an issue rather than simply voted present, he became known as the most liberal, pro-abortion, anti-family values senator in the entire U.S. Senate.

He has stated that our National Anthem is too violent, and he is not happy with what our flag represents. He has also stated that the United States Constitution is flawed. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. did not fault the Constitution. He said that America had defaulted on the promise of the Constitution.

I rarely make predictions because I have no claims to be a prophet. In this case, however, I strongly believe that as president, Barrack Obama will be a dismal disappointment and will put the quest for Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream further behind. He will be a total embarrassment to African Americans. They have chosen a leader who has not yet even proven to be entitled to be called an African American.

Jesse Williamson said...

A Short Essay on Abortion

To allege that life begins at any point other than at conception is an absurd, totally illogical argument. If you believe otherwise, answer this simple question. At what point could they have pulled your body apart and removed you from your mother’s womb with a suction tube without negating your entire future existence? Life begins at conception. There is no other logical argument. Any deliberate intrusion of the entire process of development from conception to natural birth is the murder of an innocent human being.

Some persons have described the stain of abortion on our society as being comparable to slavery. There are many parallels. Both involve the total domination of one class of persons on another for reasons that do not justify the procedure. Slaves were de-humanized. When treated as animals, ‘owners’ could mentally justify their cruel, total domination. For the unborn, the proponents of abortion make all efforts to de-humanize the innocent babies because such realization or recognition would adversely appeal to the mass conscience. For example, it is wrong to kill babies, but it is not wrong to simply remove unwanted tissue. Sadly, the government of the United States has at some point in time, permitted both inhumane practices and continues to permit the practice of abortion.

One sad fact about abortion is that it is a billion dollar industry, and in our country, the dollar rules. It is driven by money, but the real players in the abortion industry are not the beneficiaries. Millions of persons are waving the banner for the industry under the pretext of a woman’s right to choose. Those persons that collect the big money from the industry aren’t on the streets waving those banners; they don’t have to. They have convinced an entire class of people that ‘freedom of choice’ is a battle worth fighting for.

There is a big problem with the ‘freedom of choice’ argument, however. After conception, there is another person whose freedom of choice is important. The undeveloped child should also have equal, or because of their total innocence, even greater voice in the argument. They, in all cases, would have exercised their freedom of choice by choosing to live. Wanting to live is a natural instinct.

The freedom of a woman’s right to choose should be respected; however they should exercise that right prior to conceiving a third party. They should make their choice when deciding whether or not to engage in procreative acts.

Statistics show that a high percentage of abortions are performed on women who have returned for the second or third time. This would indicate that there is little or no benefit of learning from experience in the practice of abortion. This could also indicate that the practice is too easy, too inexpensive and above all, too legal to deter the practice. Can we expect frequent flier type benefits next?

Jesse E. Williamson

Jesse Williamson said...

Rejecting An Invitation from God


Becoming a mother means,
The acceptance of an invitation from God,
Inviting you to participate,
In the miraculous creation of a new human life.
That is even a greater honor than
Having the great artist Michelangelo,
Invite you to hold his brushes
While he creates a new masterpiece.
Who else could bestow such an honor?
God’s invitations are like those from the king.
They are not to be taken lightly
And there is no good reason to decline.
Turning down the invitation
Is seen as a form of disobedience,
To the One who invited you.
By declining you may be failing,
To join in His great rewards.
On one side is the Creator,
Of the world that sustains you,
Asking for your help in His design,
And on the other,
The evil one who only destroys
Asking your help in commission of his crime.
The epitome of innocence,
Is threatened by the cruelty of man.
What happened to the security of a mother’s womb?
Is that security determined by the mother’s wants?
Is a mother’s love now obsolete?
A tiny little heart is forming,
And soon will begin to beat,
Little fingers extend from the hands,
And tiny toes from the feet.
Only through God’s miraculous artwork,
Will the new child display,
Features of both the mother and the father,
In an entirely new array.
This precious new life is threatened,
By the absence of the mother’s love.
A new life would be inconvenient,
So your little life is doomed,
Before you’ve even had a chance to see.
Is there no one to defend your right to live?
Is there no one to hear your cry?
God did have plans for your life,
But they have been negated now,
Because you would be a burden
To your mother’s lifestyle.
Should man’s plans for your demise,
Outweigh the plans of God?
You will never see the sun rise and set,
Both were truly a wonderful sight to behold.
You will never know your kitten’s love,
As you carefully stroked her fur.
Where was your welcome to the community of man?
Who will celebrate your arrival now?
Can a mother’s love be turned off like a light?
The suction hose will pull my small body apart,
I will be no more.

Sunnie57 said...

What an eloquent article, Father West! Bravo!

52% of the voters made a huge mistake, but there are 46% of us who can educate them. We have our work cut out for us.

Daniel said...

Father West, I agree with everything you stated in your Post. And I also agree with Jesse Williamson's comment "Immediately excommunicate Joseph Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and any other political operative that claims fellowship with both the pro-abortion crowd and the Catholic Church." What bothers me greatly is that the USCCB seems to lack courage (i.e. balls, cojones).