Pat Dollard | Young Americans

Amnesty International Guantanamo Protesters

WSJ

Gitmo and al Qaeda
A Bush Administration debate over sending Iraqis to Guantanamo.

Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The U.S. scored a battlefield coup on July 4 when it captured a leader of al Qaeda in Iraq in the northern city of Mosul, and President Bush hailed that capture this week while declassifying other new details about that organization. The issue now is whether the Bush Administration is going to squander part of that victory because of its internal squabbles over the future of Guantanamo Bay.

No one doubts that Khalid Abdul Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashadani is a dangerous enemy of America. Also known as Abu Shahid, he “is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the al Qaeda in Iraq network,” according to a July 18 briefing by U.S. Brigadier General Kevin Bergner. Mashadani is a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. And he is believed to have been a main communications link between al-Masri and the global al Qaeda leadership of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In a Tuesday speech, Mr. Bush reported that Mashadani has “confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are at the top echelons of al Qaeda in Iraq” and that “foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions.” Like all such high-value detainees, Mashadani is a potential trove of intelligence both now and well into the future.

The question is what to do with him and other al Qaeda figures who are being captured in increasing numbers in Iraq. One possibility is to turn him over to Iraqi security forces, who would not read him any Miranda rights. He would probably be tried and hanged. This would serve the cause of justice because Iraqis are the main victims of al Qaeda in Iraq’s suicide bombings. But handing Mashadani over to Iraq might also eliminate him as a source of intelligence, even as we learn more about al Qaeda in Iraq and thus know better what to inquire about.
His other natural destination is Guantanamo, where the U.S. houses other enemy combatants in the war on terror. This would guarantee his safe treatment, while also keeping him available for further interrogation. Just as important, the transfer would signal that Gitmo continues as a valuable antiterror tool.

We’re told, however, that some senior officials at the State and Defense Departments are opposed to such a transfer. They want Mr. Bush to close down Guantanamo as a goodwill gesture to the rest of the world, and they believe that transferring al Qaeda in Iraq detainees there might make that harder to do. They may be right, but in our view that’s all the more reason to send the detainees to Gitmo.

While Guantanamo is clearly disliked around the world, those who want to close it have yet to offer a suitable alternative. Transferring its detainees to some place further offshore would mean spending billions of more dollars on a new facility, while facing the same criticism from antiwar activists. Gitmo is also territory under U.S. control, which means it avoids the complication of embarrassing allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, or somewhere else (as in the “secret CIA prisons” in Europe where KSM and other 9/11 plotters were allegedly kept before their transfer to Gitmo in 2006).

The legality of Guantanamo has also been upheld by the Supreme Court, which isn’t true of any other foreign outpost. The High Court has agreed to hear another Gitmo-related case in October, and it’s not a bad idea to remind the Justices that Guantanamo harbors terrorists captured on the current battlefield while trying to kill Americans. That fact might give them pause before they supplant their own war judgment for the Commander in Chief’s and make it easier for these killers to return to the war.

The real goal of Guantanamo’s critics is to have these killers treated like common criminals in American courts. That would make it impossible to deny them the full array of U.S. legal protections. In many cases, prosecutors would lack enough evidence to convict them under normal trial rules, especially if much of the evidence were classified. Soldiers don’t build a criminal case like “C.S.I.” sleuths when they’re snagging an enemy on the battlefield while also trying to avoid getting killed.

The result of bringing Gitmo detainees into U.S. criminal courts would inevitably be their widespread release–which means leaving them free to kill Americans again. The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point recently examined the non-classified evidence about Gitmo detainees, and in a new report concludes that 73% were a “demonstrated threat” to U.S. forces. No less than 95% were a “potential threat.” According to the Pentagon, at least 30 former Gitmo detainees have returned to fight Americans after deceiving U.S. interrogators and being released.

One of those detainees, Abdullah Mahsud, was captured in northern Afghanistan in late 2001, held until March 2004, and upon release immediately became a Taliban leader in southern Waziristan near the Afghan-Pakistan border. In October 2004, he directed the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers, one of whom was killed during a rescue attempt. This week he blew himself up with a grenade rather than surrender to Pakistani troops who had him surrounded.

In his speech this week, Mr. Bush went on the political offense and made a strong case that al Qaeda in Iraq is part and parcel of the larger al Qaeda network. To leave Iraq too soon would hand bin Laden a victory. Mr. Bush can strengthen his argument–and protect Americans–by dispatching Mashadani and other al Qaeda in Iraq captives to the Guantanamo prison for terrorist killers.