Skip to comments.Freed to kill again (Bhutto killer's brother was released from Gitmo)
Posted on 12/29/2007 10:27:34 AM PST by knighthawk
Yes, you could argue, were you so inclined, that Benazir Bhutto might well be alive today if only Washington had not leaned on her to return to Pakistan for the sake of a U.S.-brokered political deal that was perhaps not in her personal best interest.
More to the point, you could argue that Benazir Bhutto might well be alive today if only Abdullah Mehsud had not been let loose from Guantanamo, where he plainly belonged, regardless of what the bleaters and hand-wringers thought about that.
But, as our Washington man James Gordon Meek today reports, Mehsud convinced somebody in charge down Gitmo way that he was naught but some poor innocent swept up in the fog of war and unjustly jugged. Such a big meanie the U.S. government was for persecuting so harmless a fellow. And so he went free, one of about 450 Gitmo detainees disimprisoned in the past few years.
Whereupon, like at least several dozen other releasees whose post-Gitmo careers have been documented, he went straight back to the battlefields, wreaking righteous jihad upon the infidel. In his case, he reiterated himself as a notorious Talibanesque commander in wild and woolly tribal Waziristan, well known to authorities, running a group that specialized in kidnapping foreign aid workers and blowing up Pakistani soldiers.
Abdullah Mehsud himself was reportedly killed in action a few months back. But his outfit has lived on. Just a week or so ago, it sent out one of its suicide bombers to attack a school bus and maim a bunch of children.
And chief among the late Abdullah's lieutenants has been a kid brother, one Baitullah Mehsud - who yesterday, per transcripts of purportedly intercepted terrorist communications, was identified by Pakistani security forces as the man behind the assault upon Benazir Bhutto's motorcade.
No, it can't be concluded that Madame Bhutto's death warrant was sealed the day Big Brother Abdullah walked out of Guantanamo. Still, events are events. And it is useful to consider the words of Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, speaking recently at a subcommittee hearing into the legal rights of Gitmo detainees:
"A detention regime for terrorists whom we intend to detain until the end of hostilities should seek to weed out mistakes. But it must also be designed in a way that also protects our nation's legitimate interests. ... Releasing committed terrorists has already resulted in the deaths of allied soldiers and innocent civilians. ... The possibility of such result must always be kept in mind."
There are, for the record, about 275 people still under lock and key in Guantanamo.
I thought he blew himself up? "
They're still trying to piece this together.
It took me a couple of minutes also to make sure who was who.
You and me both. I blame the writer for that. Heck, even the real headline is misleading.
Just as leftists killed both John and Robert Kennedy.
My sister was bitten by a moose once.
Our childish policies on torture appear to have limited whatever benefits might have accrued from capturing Jihadists. Our new policy should be to kill them all in the field; no point in taking prisoners that will only show up back on the battlefield weeks later—courtesy of the International Left, moron judges in the US courts, sympathetic Muslim governments, the UN, and a host of duplicitous NGO’s who pretend America is the real enemy.
Read that, "They're still searching for a 'spin' that works."
4 + 3 = 9
It helps your understanding if you actually read the article.
“I wonder how long it will be before those suffering BDS will be blaming Bush.”
About 30 seconds after the news broke on CNN...
I knew it. George Bush is responsible for Bhutto's death.
I’d rather we take no more prisoners in the gwoj (global war on jihad)
I agree, the first sentence is a dead give away to the direction of the article. They just want to blame Bush any way that they can. Benazir Bhutto lived to return to Pakistan, getting the nod from Washington just fullfilled her dreams. I remember watching her on FOX and wondering what exactly her goals were.
One poster referred to the DU, so I decided to check it out. There is a taped interview with Bhutto, from November, where she mentions the name of a man who killed Bin Laden. Now, some lefty is claiming that “the Bush crime family” was involved in having Bin Laden murdered by Musharaff’s people and covered it up to prop up Musharaff.
Again, the circular logic of the left is astounding. First, Bush sent Bhutto to unseat Musharaff, and Bush was wasting time and men in Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden. Now, Bush was trying to prop up Musharaff and was covering up the death of Bin Laden.
I know the Guardian is a "leftist rag" and no real "conservative" would consult it but what if that part is true? Anybody have a source that disproves it? I do care about the truth insofar as it can be ascertained.
More at link, also lots of pictures and an obituary somewhere, says she attended Radcliffe, Harvard and Oxford.
By golly their search engine works better than most. The articles I read the other day aren't all on the front page any more.
"Benazir Bhutto's short-lived and ill-fated return to Pakistan was the result of a delicate deal with Musharraf, brokered by both the US and Britain. Bhutto had corruption charges against her dropped and in return her participation in the political process gave credibility to Musharraf's continued rule as president"
What about the men captured by warlords and turned over to Americans for bounty?