Twenty Percent "Isn't That Bad"?

John Brennan is coming under a lot of fire because of his recent pronouncement that a 20% recidivism rate on released Guantanamo detainees "is not that bad."

Here is Brennan's actual statement and General Jim Jones who actually doesn't think it's that bad either:



The problem here, it seems to me, is that they are still in a criminal justice frame of mind.

There are many issues on which Lindsay Graham and I disagree, but on this one, not so much:



When Graham says "it makes no sense to say that a 20% recidivism rate is not that bad..." he is spot on. As Chris Matthews points out, if you have a 20% recidivism rate when you're talking about shoplifters, that's quite a different story than when you have a 20% return to jihad from terrorists. Graham is, of course, calling for Brennan's discharge and says Brennan has lost his confidence.

Intrepid researcher Thomas Joscelyn points out that this recidivism number has continued to grow over the last 18 months:

The 20 percent figure cited by the Pentagon and Brennan translates to a current estimated number of recidivists north of 100. A good estimate is 112. Thus, in June 2008 the estimate was just 37 former detainees. Today, less than two years later, the estimate is roughly three times higher.

So, when Brennan says that 20 percent isn't that bad he is ignoring the fact that the estimated number of recidivists continues to grow and could easily be much higher just months from now.

Of course the response from the left will be to blame Bush and to point out that many of those that returned to jihad were released by Bush. And to that, I return to my premise that just because Bush screwed up doesn't mean Obama has to; it's an slow learner indeed who doesn't learn from the mistakes of the past.

Yemen Security Forces "Lose" Six Trucks of Weapons

I'm not exactly sure how security forces lose track of six trucks of weapons and explosives, but they've managed to do just that in Yemen which prompted the closure of several embassies, including ours, yesterday:

The closure of three embassies in Yemen was prompted by local security forces losing track of six trucks full of arms and explosives, say reports from Yemen.

France announced its mission in the capital Sanaa was shut on Monday, a day after the US and UK closed theirs.

It follows threats from an al-Qaeda wing linked to an alleged plot to blow up a transatlantic plane over the US.

******

On Monday, France shut its Yemen embassy, Japan suspended its consular service in Sanaa, and Spain restricted public access to its mission there.

It comes after six trucks full of weapons and explosives entered the capital, and the security forces lost track of the vehicles, according to Yemeni media.

Meanwhile, John Brennan continues to insist we will return terroists to Yemen and at the same time work plea bargains with the Panty-Bomber. If they can't keep up with six weapons loaded trucks, how will they keep up with returned jihadists?

A Deal on the Table for Captain Underpants

I'm hesitant to get too worked up over this until more is known, assuming it ever is, but I will say that on the face of it, it doesn't sound good. Politico reports this from John Brennan's round on the Sunday shows this morning:

The U.S. Government is offering the suspect charged with attempting to bomb an aircraft on Christmas Day, Omar Abdulmutallab, some kind of incentives to share what he knows about Al Qaeda, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Sunday.

Asked why Abdulmutallab should cooperate given his right, as criminal defendant, to remain silent, Brennan replied: "He doesn't have to but he knows there are certain things that are on the table... if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways he can do that."

Ed Morrissey succinctly sums it up:

Now Brennan suggests they’ll cut a deal with the terrorist to get what they may have gotten for free otherwise.

It's true that he does suggest that a deal is on the table. I'm not sure what other read you could put on the statement "certain things that are on the table...". It sure sounds like a deal.

Frugal Cafe dares to speculate:

What does this terrorist deal involve? Guaranteed immunity, a new identity, a sweet relocation package so that Abdulmutallab can move to Massachusetts or Illinois, hook up with his bloodthirsty al Qaeda buddies, and start planning a bigger, better jihad attack on Americans?

Who knows? But this jihadi monster has lawyered up to the gills, so you know the deal must be fabulous.

The bottom line for me is that this was botched from the beginning as soon as Abdulmutallab was charged with a criminal offense. He should have been turned over to the military and interrogated as an enemy combatant. Lord knows Team Obama has made that kind of interrogation much less terrifying that it would have been in years past. As soon as he announced to the world that we would only go by the Army Field Manual, every terrorist on the planet began training for it.

We could have obtained valuable information from Abdulmutallab. As it is now, he is exercising his right to remain silent, a right that was bestowed on him when he came HERE to blow us up.

I don't know what kind of "things are on the table" but I do know if this guy gets sent back to Yemen or Nigeria, or if he gets any kind of special treatment at all, it is political suicide for the Democrats. I just don't think Americans will stand for it.

Via: Memeorandum

Terrorism Czar Says Yes to Yemen?

John Brennan is the new terrorism czar. (Side question - why do we need a "terrorism czar" when we have a Department of Homeland Security? ....oh....never mind.)

Anyway, Brennan is quoted this morning as saying that yes indeedy some Gitmo graduates will still go to Yemen:

About half of the roughly 200 detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay would be prosecuted in the United States by federal courts or military tribunals. Some would be sent to third countries, including Yemenis returned to their home nation, Brennan said.

Can we all just get on the same page, here?

Team Obama on December 12 says it's okay to send detainees to Yemen: "the government was gaining confidence in Yemen’s willingness to handle returning detainees after months of 'intense' talks under the Obama administration..."

But on January 1 the story is "A senior administration official said Thursday that Mr. Obama’s interagency team had already decided quietly several weeks ago that the security situation in Yemen was too volatile to transfer any more detainees beyond six who were sent home in December. "

Are we or aren't we?

Hello? Is anybody home?


Related Post: John O. Brennan's Philosophy on Iran

Via: Hot Air and Memeorandum

John O. Brennan's Philosophy on Iran

The more I read about John O. Brennan the more it becomes clear why he withdrew his name in November 2008 for consideration as Director of the C.I.A. For that position, of course, he'd have to undergo Senate confirmation. As Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security he won't have to deal with that inconvenience. Brennan's firm, you might remember, was involved in the security breach earlier this year in which the passport records of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain were accessed. Newsmax cites a source that says the "contractor accessed the [Obama passport] file in order to 'cauterize' the records of potentially embarrasing information."

Passports and probably birth certificate files aside, certainly there might have been some questions about Brennan's July 2008 article in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. The article is titled "The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence."

Brennan basically lays out the case why the United States should just talk to Iran nicely rather than with belligerence. He suggests we "tone down the rhetoric" and for the United States to "cease public Iran-bashing." If we don't call them terrorists anymore, they'll like us. We must also "show restraint in the face of anti-American comments" from Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials. In other words, they can call us names and we're supposed to take it but we can't call them bullies in return. Right. Got it.

He goes on to say that we should offer what equates to positive reinforcement by rewarding and offering public recognition of positive Iranian actions and individuals. Then they would all want to quit being terrorists, or sponsors of terrorism.

Brennan believes in "the establishment of a direct and senior-level dialogue between Washington and Tehran." Not only that, but he says that "These discussions must take place in private, not in the blinding glare of a public spotlight that limits the political maneuvering room of each side."

So let me get this straight. In order to repair relations with Iran, the United States should play nice, quit calling them names, turn the other cheek when they call us names, praise their good behavior and send in a senior level official to meet with them behind closed doors. Brennan even has suggestions for that official - he thinks Colin Powell would be good, or even Madeline Albright. He also suggested Al Gore.

Won't this make our ally Israel happy!

His final recommendation is that we encourage greater assimilation of the Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah into the Lebanese political system. You know, Lebanon? Those folks that are shooting rockets into Israel right now? Those guys. Isn't this sort of like giving gang-members a bunch of brand new rocket launchers? Give them the power and maybe they'll quit killing people? How exactly does THAT work?

What happened to our policy of not negotiating with terrorists? Even the New York Times reported this weekend that Iran is working quickly to the production of nuclear weapons. If we are to believe Brennan, all we need to do is ask them nicely, without belligerent rhetoric to please stop.

I'm not going to surmise what BHO is thinking, but Brennan isn't the guy that would be advising me on homeland security. He doesn't make me feel very safe.