There was a similar list at Gatewaypundit a few days ago.

Many Gitmo detainees the minute they are released go back to terrorist activities, some get caught, some die...

and almost all liberals still hold on to the belief that there is no good reason to keep Gitmo detainees locked away...

Instead of sending these guys back to their home country,why don't send them to the homes of the lawyers who get them relesased? I'm positive all these liberal ambulance chasers would welcome the chance to prove just how effective their socialist "rehabilitation" schemes work. Wouldn't they?

ME Oil money using the american justice system against the US people - big surprise? The money grabbing lawyers that spring the terror animals from Gitmo would never admit it though - that might be construed as...treason.

I wonder if any portion of those legal fees continued down the line into somebody's presidential campaign fund?

This article brings to mind the recent interview of Michael Moore on the Larry King show. Moore (naturally) suggested the 'war on terror' was unwinnable, pointing out that the U.S. has been in Iraq longer than in WWII.

What he either doesn't get (which I doubt) or won't acknowledge, is that idiots like himself, prolong the conflict by acting as a fifth column to hobble any effort at victory. These people sow seeds of doubt at home and give succor and validity to the enemy.

Money-grubbing lawyers and ideologically driven filmmakers act in ways that can only be described as treasonous, in order to line their own pockets and satify their personal vanities.

What they are doing is no different than Blunt, Burgess, Philby and Maclean did in Britain in the 1950's - but because they are 'civilians' rather than government apparatchik's they are given a pass. At leat the Brit's did it because they actually believed in the other's ideology, rather than for crass financial or vanity motives.

Let's hope that our Government is exercising due diligence in dealings with these legal firms and is monitoring financial investments by ME governments in our oil patch.
Has the Harper Government made any progress in regulating lobbyists in Ottawa?
To be sure there is a background of dirty money behind the Kadar case and perhaps even the Martin one.
And, yes the fifth column is alive and active in Canada. The news releases regarding the Tigers of Elam is enlightening.

So long as this is a lesson to the yanks:

Don't let them surrender. Shoot them.

NoGuff,

You are right and as you probably know, there is another reason why wars now are lasting longer,

Western leaders are trying to fight wars the "leftist way", which means doing ridiculous politically correct things such as not bombing the enemy because he might be too close to some cemetery, mosque or whatever, or no fighting during Ramadan etc...

Fighting a politically correct limited war ( a relatively new concept ) designed more to please leftist lawyers than to win is a sure way to make any war last longer.

We do it their way and then leftists complain we can not win and wars last too long...

George H Bush ( father ) did not follow any politically correct rules of engagement and bombed the hell out of the enemy the traditional way, and that is why the first Gulf war was so short.

The leftist politically correct wars are only prolonging the suffering for everyone.

The length of war has nothing to do with being fought the "leftist way". Insurgencies almost always last a very long time, which is something of which those comparing it to a conventional war are obviously ignorant. Resorting to indiscriminate use of force makes the problem worse, turning the civilian population increasingly hostile and more likely to support the insurgents. Successful counter-insurgencies - such as the one currently being successfully waged by Gen. Petraeus' forces in Iraq - work by using only minimal force and separating the insurgents from the population on which they depend.

"George H Bush ( father ) did not follow any politically correct rules of engagement and bombed the hell out of the enemy the traditional way, and that is why the first Gulf war was so short."

BS - Bush listened to the very politically correct Colin Powel, who got his falopian tubes in a twist when he saw the "highway of death", and terminated the war about 48 hours early.

Belisarius

yes there is a difference between a conventional war and an insugency, butt NOGUFF still has a valid point. Isreal like to phone the Hamas an hour before time to let them know they are about to distroy a "rocket" factory, this allows all sorts of equipment, blueprints, and skilled personal to be saved. If I were incharge, I would phone an hour after the factory was destroyed to let them know I did it, and you would see a large decrease in "rockets" manufactured, as they would have to replace a lot more equipment and retrain personal, if they could convince anyone to work for them. This also applies in Iraq, as people would learn quickly that there were protocals in place that could benifit them, as it is the insurgents are allowed to play the political (convince western liberals) games to their advantage. Remove that advantage and the face of the insurgence would change, as the insurgents would no longer have the motive of manipulating trhe liberals

When will we learn that the only way to win a war is to brutalize your enemy into unconditional surrender? PJ O'Rourke wrote a really interesting book on how Peace Kills... I believe it was called peace kills.

He focussed a lot of attention on Clinton's Kosovo war as being "left friendly" which is why it continued and is continuing to it's ultimate end; The unconditional surrender and subjugation of the enemy. In Kosovo's case, the surrender will eventually be Serbs who have been bred out of their ancestral homeland.

Essentially O'Rourke goes on to say that dicking around... like the Yanks and Brits are doing in Iraq leads to more deaths. Instead of instilling the fear in terrorists that they seek to instill in us, we send them aid money.

Destroy your enemy until he is a desperate friend.

The problem is telling the insurgent from the civilian. They blow up a passing humvee, then melt into the crowd. What do you do then? Kill everybody in sight? Do that and you instantly add a few thousands recruits to the ranks of the enemy. Next time your soldiers are on patrol there are 10 bombs where there used to be 1.

Fight an insurgency the smart way and the civilians will warn you about the bombs, maybe even before they're planted. If the locals think you're bringing security and prosperity instead of death and destruction your chances of success go up a thousandfold.

I know men who have studied COIN professionally, then fought it themselves, then come back and taught it to others who were going to go fight it. Had a few beers at the mess with one not two weeks ago.

Belisarius is right on this.

Believe me, the guys in uniform are more than happy to kill the living bejeezus out of any enemy our government legally requires them to. Generally, the response to what's left of the bad-guys after a TIC is "If they didn't want to end up bled out and in pieces, they shouldn't have come looking for a fight." So when your own best and brightest soldiers are telling you sometimes it's better to NOT kill everyone, you should really listen.

Remember: it's their asses on the line, so their attention is pretty focused on doing it the best way possible.

I agree indiscriminate destruction of enemy civilians is a tactic of the Jihad Terrorists and not of our side. That said; civilians know that a terrorist group is nearby by word of mouth and will avoid it. That is the real civilians will.
Phoning an hour ahead is ridiculous and I'm sure is seen as a weakness by both the Jihadists and the civilians we are trying to win over. And you can't assume you will win all the civilians over.
It reminds me of a cartoon drawing from WW11, where two Canadian soldiers stop to talk to some native children. "Cute little guys"; says one soldier. (The drawing depicts one of the children with a grenade hidden behind his back.)