Well, so much for the rehabilitation of terrorists . . .

[Mike]

Check this out:

 

"Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, ABC News is reporting, quoting American officials and citing Department of Defense documents."

 

Apparently the art therapy program that was used to rehabilitate them didn't quite work out the way that everyone had hoped.

[Antimatter]

That smells of some sort of political deal the US made with the Saudi government. I wonder if they were related to the royal family or something.

[Mike]

That smells of some sort of political deal the US made with the Saudi government. I wonder if they were related to the royal family or something.

 

Naah . . . I think people sometimes just overestimate the power of art therapy.

[Joel]

I think people sometimes just overestimate the power of art therapy.

 

And underestimate the enemy.

 

[Twisties]

I think people sometimes just overestimate the power of art therapy.

 

And underestimate the enemy.

 

Or, perhaps, have a good estimate of the enemy's apparently highly limited abilities.... Which is to say that once again they failed to design an ignition system that worked.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

..but, shortly, they'll be within your reach, Mike. Do they also fall under your jurisdiction?

[Mike]

..but, shortly, they'll be within your reach, Mike. Do they also fall under your jurisdiction?

 

Nope. Not me.

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

My first thought on reading this story was, this smells like one of those stories that is too good to be true and, 3 days later, turns out not to be.

 

But if it does turn out to be true, for those who won't bother to read the original article, you could point out that it was a Saudi art therapy program, which raises a whole different set of questions that are much more interesting than the simple meme "we're too soft on terrorists".

 

Also, anybody who decides this illustrates a partisan political point about being soft on terrorists, you probably don't want to go there and you should read the article again, carefully.

[Whip]

My first thought on reading this story was, this smells like one of those stories that is too good to be true and, 3 days later, turns out not to be.

 

But if it does turn out to be true, for those who won't bother to read the original article, you could point out that it was a Saudi art therapy program, which raises a whole different set of questions that are much more interesting than the simple meme "we're too soft on terrorists".

 

Also, anybody who decides this illustrates a partisan political point about being soft on terrorists, you probably don't want to go there and you should read the article again, carefully.

 

No ones mentioned anything to do with particianship.....cept you.

[DavidEBSmith]

No ones mentioned anything to do with particianship.....cept you.

 

But you and I both know what some people will be thinking when they see the headline. And way too many people don't read past the headline. I'm just trying to save them from themselves.

[Joel]

I think people sometimes just overestimate the power of art therapy.

 

And underestimate the enemy.

 

Or, perhaps, have a good estimate of the enemy's apparently highly limited abilities.... Which is to say that once again they failed to design an ignition system that worked.

 

I'm grateful for this instance of ineptitude, and what I'd guess are countless other similar instances that we never find out about. But there's no solace. Even the failed efforts of terrorists advance their cause. Particularly disappointing is that someone on the watch list got so close.

[lawnchairboy]

It was probably the toxic crayons from China that contributed to the failure of the art therapy.

 

Sheesh.

[Mike]

No ones mentioned anything to do with particianship.....cept you.

 

But you and I both know what some people will be thinking when they see the headline. And way too many people don't read past the headline. I'm just trying to save them from themselves.

 

It never occurred to me that this could be viewed as partisan. Anyone who clicks on the link--the first item in my post--could see in the very short news blip that these clowns were released into the hands of the Saudis under a previous U.S. administration.

 

The real point, at least to me, is this: the whole idea that any individual who is truly a terrorist could be rehabilitated is ludicrous. As you correctly note, the fact that these dudes were turned over to the Saudis, who have not proven to be the most trustworthy of allies, is a pretty significant aspect of this story.

 

But if you think posting this link was meant to be a partisan statement, you're reading far more into this than was intended.

[AviP]

C'mon, we love the Saudis. We have one (or more?) base(s) there, they sell us oil, buy our companies and bonds and we give them weapons. And the radicals, whom the dictatorship hates too, hates everybody. The rehab deal was probably a barter deal for something that cannot be advertized. Don't blame the Saudis for our spineless foreign policy. They are worse than Saddam and yet we love them. Blame our constantly flip-flopping foreign policy where we have friendly relations with the 2 worst terrorist countries of the past decade: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Instead we are focused on Iraq and Iran but did any of the terrorists actually originate there?

 

[Mike]

Instead we are focused on Iraq and Iran but did any of the terrorists actually originate there?

 

I'm not vouching for the information presented, but here's some:

 

Information on Iraq's involvement in terrorism and

 

Information on Iran's involvement in terrorism.

 

I suppose it goes without saying that one man's terrorism may be another man's quest for for freedom. However, both of those states have had a history of conduct that has been characterized, from a bipartisan perspective in the U.S., as terrorism.

 

The term "terrorism" certainly carries an emotional connotation, and, as time goes on, has perhaps lost some of its meaning. However, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

[Polo]

Apparently the art therapy program that was used to rehabilitate them didn't quite work out the way that everyone had hoped.

 

I submit my vote for the methods of Innocent III.

[DavidEBSmith]

It never occurred to me that this could be viewed as partisan. Anyone who clicks on the link--the first item in my post--could see in the very short news blip that these clowns were released into the hands of the Saudis under a previous U.S. administration.

 

. . .

 

But if you think posting this link was meant to be a partisan statement, you're reading far more into this than was intended.

 

No, I didn't think you were making a partisan statement, but if someone reading it didn't click on the link, someone could misinterpret the chronology. And if someone who reads it is an opponent of the current administration and believes that the administration is "soft on terrorism", "terrorists released from Gitmo to do art therapy" feeds into that belief, and that reader isn't likely to feel a need to click through and get confirmation before attacking the current administration for being soft on terrorism, absent someone waving a red warning flag. It's a matter of psychology, not politics - when presented with incomplete information, you make it fit into what you already know or believe.

[bendbill]

tangentially off topic . . .

 

According to this NY Times article on Gitmo recidivism, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html, 1 in 7 released detainees rejoins terrorist or militant groups.

 

Prompting one TV wag tonight to note [sarcastically] that the terrorist program was much more successful than those used on US criminals, who consistently re-offfend at rates of 50-75%.

[Paul Mihalka]

"I'm grateful for this instance of ineptitude, and what I'd guess are countless other similar instances that we never find out about. But there's no solace. Even the failed efforts of terrorists advance their cause. Particularly disappointing is that someone on the watch list got so close."

 

Even a failed terrorist attack is a victory for the terrorists. First, they show that their man got on the plane or whatever in spite of all the countermeasures. Next, they produce immense inconvenience and expenses to the world they are terrorizing. A dumba$$ with a failed shoebomb makes everybody take their shoes off to get on a plane. Another dumba$$ with a failed panties bomb causes hours of delays and more money spent on "security" around the world. Win or loose, the terrorists win.

 

[Selden]

C'mon, we love the Saudis. We have one (or more?) base(s) there, they sell us oil, buy our companies and bonds and we give them weapons. And the radicals, whom the dictatorship hates too, hates everybody. The rehab deal was probably a barter deal for something that cannot be advertized. Don't blame the Saudis for our spineless foreign policy. They are worse than Saddam and yet we love them. Blame our constantly flip-flopping foreign policy where we have friendly relations with the 2 worst terrorist countries of the past decade: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Instead we are focused on Iraq and Iran but did any of the terrorists actually originate there?

We definitely aren't giving weapons to the Saudis -- for decades they have been paying through the nose for weapons, support, and training. While the 9/11 terrorists and Al-Qa'eda had nothing to do with Iran or Iraq (both countries were opponents of Al-Qa'eda), neither country is without a history of making mischief, especially the Iranians with their support for Hizbollah in Lebanon. Support for terrorists doesn't mean attacking the west, viz. Iraq's support for the MEK, or Pakistan's support for various Islamist groups in Kashmir. Everybody loses. Eventually the Islamist terrorist fad will burn out; nihilism can't survive forever.

[Mike]

Apparently the art therapy program that was used to rehabilitate them didn't quite work out the way that everyone had hoped.

 

I submit my vote for the methods of Innocent III.

 

It didn't work out so well for that dude . . . According to Catholic belief, the day after his death he appeared in flames, explaining that he was in Purgatory . . . and would remain there for hundreds of years . . . for his faults.

[Agent_Orange]

Gee. Do ya think that now we will have to take our underwear off before boarding da plane? I mean shoe bomb = take off shoes, underwear bomb = take off underwear.

Bet'cha Napolitano will be all over this.

[philbytx]

They were such nice God fearing boys!

Bah! In a wartime situation, I way prefer "lead therapy".....nothing like a good ole firing squad .

IMHO - the Government should put the Fort Hood murderer before one.

[Polo]

Apparently the art therapy program that was used to rehabilitate them didn't quite work out the way that everyone had hoped.

 

I submit my vote for the methods of Innocent III.

 

It didn't work out so well for that dude . . . According to Catholic belief, the day after his death he appeared in flames, explaining that he was in Purgatory . . . and would remain there for hundreds of years . . . for his faults.

 

Hmmm...

 

Well, so he was victimized by the impeachment process.

 

Therein lies the difference between a mere politician and a statesman.

[Gregori]

It was probably the toxic crayons from China that contributed to the failure of the art therapy.

Yep - they ought to get lead poisoning - at 1200 fps...

[DavidEBSmith]

tangentially off topic . . .

 

According to this NY Times article on Gitmo recidivism, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html, 1 in 7 released detainees rejoins terrorist or militant groups.

 

Prompting one TV wag tonight to note [sarcastically] that the terrorist program was much more successful than those used on US criminals, who consistently re-offfend at rates of 50-75%.

 

Apparently this art program was the subject of a documentary shown on PBS, and according to the transcript of the film quoting the guy running the program, the recidivism rate is 5%.

 

On the other hand, if you read the note at the bottom of the NYT article linked above, you will be confused. But what it seems to be saying is, 1 of 7 former Gitmo detainees confirmed or suspected of engaging in terrorism before their capture go back to terrorism, and overall among former Gitmo detainees, 1 in 20 engage in terrorism after their release. Which would be 5%, so unless all the releasees go into the art therapy program, it suggests that the art therapy program is no more effective than just releasing them.

 

It also suggests that there are a significant percentage of detainees at Gitmo that are not confirmed or suspected of engaging in terrorism before their capture, which somewhat mitigates against the alternative solutions of just keeping them locked up forever or just executing them all. Which would have a better success rate than 95%, if you don't mind that some of them may not be actually guilty of anything. But, a small price to pay to reduce that 1 in 10 million chance of being on a flight targeted by terrorists.

 

Anyway, it seems that the whole art therapy thing may be more complex than it first appears. But it sure does make for a funny headline.

[lawnchairboy]

Amen.

[steve.foote]

All this talk of statistics and lightning and all got me thinking. If you look at this entire bit from the terrorist’s point of view, you have to wonder how much bang they are getting for their buck (or martyr).

 

Considering their world-wide terror campaign has netted less than 10,000 deaths of infidel’s, maybe they aren’t as clever as some would lead us to believe. As we recently learned, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to try and set his shoes or underwear on fire. However, it evidently does take more than an engineering graduate to do it correctly. That said, do these neurological misfits really believe they can wipe out the entire western world one plane load at a time? I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed nor am I an engineering graduate or a rocket scientist but I can think of lots of ways of killing the enemy which would be far more effective.

 

I’m thinking that the only organ smaller than their little, tiny, black hearts is the dozen or so disparate cells which comprise what science might consider their brain. Maybe this explains why they live the way they do and why they hate those who live better.

 

BTW, my solution to the whole airline security thing is to simply install a 16 inch long oak club in a little pocket in plain view on the back of each passenger seat. I doubt everyone on the plane would participate, but it only takes a half dozen or so to change somebody’s mind. And, yes, I realize that statistically an innocent or two will be clubbed every now and then, but since it would be such a low number, it wouldn’t matter and there is no need to discuss it further.

[bendbill]

It also suggests that there are a significant percentage of detainees at Gitmo that are not confirmed or suspected of engaging in terrorism before their capture, which somewhat mitigates against the alternative solutions of just keeping them locked up forever or just executing them all. Which would have a better success rate than 95%, if you don't mind that some of them may not be actually guilty of anything. But, a small price to pay to reduce that 1 in 10 million chance of being on a flight targeted by terrorists.

 

I should let the thread die, but funny numbers inspire me. While the 538 article about 1 in 10 million [dying by terrorism on a U.S. flight] was clever, it played loose with numbers. Even among the hosanna chorus following the op-ed, one writer pointed out that the statistics lacked correlation.

 

The article’s 1 in 10,000,000 is at bottom selective. So here’s my selection:

 

1. Even a 5% recidivism from the 500+ prisoners already released from Guantanamo leaves us 25 additional committed terrorists free to roam when we once had them under control. Imagine fighting WW II this way. [besides, such actions may result in idealists becoming killers Remember Saving Private Ryan? It was the once-Pollyannish Upham who executes the unarmed German prisoner/recidivist in cold blood. It usually is.]

 

2. 4 out of 6 terrorist flights have been successful in killing people on American land. They’re batting .667.

 

3. 3000 people were killed on the 4 successful terrorist-flights of Sept 11. Using the 538 op-ed stats means that one person is killed in America for every 10,000 flights. Americans will accept much higher numbers for accidents, incompetence, even crime. But if a 1 in 10,000 ratio of terrorist-murders vs flights on American soil recurs because of lax security, it will bring swift regime change. It should.

 

On a positive note, the funniest thing I read in the NY Times piece was the quote by Mark P. Denbeaux, who has represented Guantánamo detainees. Admitting that some of his clients no doubt returned to terrorism, he replied, "Nothing's perfect." That's unctuous, fatuous and dismissive in two words. It's a talent of sorts.

 

[DavidEBSmith]

2. 4 out of 6 terrorist flights have been successful in killing people on American land. They’re batting .667.

 

This is only your most glaring statistical fallacy. If you select the ones that are successful, they're successful. By that logic, I should bet on the Florida Marlins to win the World Series in 2010, because they've been successful in winning 2 out of 2 appearances, so they're batting 1.000. It's a lock!

 

#3, I don't know where you get 1 person killed in 10,000 flights. There have been 99 million flights over the past decade. 99 million divided by 3000 is 33,000, not 10,000. Of course, that number has no connection with reality, because airline security precautions are intended to protect airline passengers, and most of the 9/11 victims were killed on the ground. If you start counting people who were or were not killed on the ground in airline terrorist attacks, your likelihood of being killed by a terrorist attack will drop even further. Not to mention, no matter how much you twiddle the numbers to prove your predetermined point, there have still only been 6 in-air terrorist incidents out of 99 million flights over the past decade.

 

As for point #1, by saying "recidivism", you make the assumption that every prisoner at Gitmo has been proven to be a terrorist. Quite the contrary, some have been proven not to be terrorists, some have been released because there's no evidence they're terrorists, most have not been found to be guilty of anything, and it's highly likely that some have been made into terrorists by being sold into captivity, detained indefinitely, tortured, and exiled to a strange country. So I guess if we're going to torture them and hold them incommunicado, we have to do it in perpetuity?

 

Finally, if we're going to establish public policy based on war movies, I'd much rather we pick Inglourious Basterds.

[Mike]

It does seem like it's futile to try to either justify or attack any counterterrorism policy based on statistics that look at lives saved or lost. That sort of analysis seems to miscomprehend the nature and effect of terrorism. The very reason is works is because the total effect is out of proportion to the physical harm caused. I don't think you'll ever change that, since terrorism preys on the manipulation of human emotion.

 

If, for example, you were to try to estimate the overall cost of the 9/11 attacks, you'd probably have to consider the following:

 

-2,819 killed in the attacks (a number that changes)

-1,690 who lost a spouse or partner

-3,051 children who lost a parent

-400 additional FDNY retirements

-146,100 jobs lost in New York

-684 point drop in the Dow Jones when the NYSE reopened

-1,714 hate crimes against islamics

-$105 billion in economic loss to New York in one month following the attack

-$600 million cost of cleanup

-$40.2 billion in insurance payouts relating to 9/11

-422,000 New Yorkers suffering from PTSD as a result of the attacks

 

New York Magazine Source for this Info

 

Of course, these numbers do not begin to measure the impact from the subsequent military actions that followed, the loss of consumer confidence, the impact on the airline and travel industry, or any of the other thousands of ways in which the attacks fundamentally changed American life. Really, the scope of the impact--almost uniformly negative--is mind-boggling. The September 11 attacks were, unfortunately, a masterful execution of asymmetrical warfare. I think we'll be struggling with the questions posed in these discussions for decades to come.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bud]

"I'm grateful for this instance of ineptitude, and what I'd guess are countless other similar instances that we never find out about. But there's no solace. Even the failed efforts of terrorists advance their cause. Particularly disappointing is that someone on the watch list got so close."

 

Even a failed terrorist attack is a victory for the terrorists. First, they show that their man got on the plane or whatever in spite of all the countermeasures. Next, they produce immense inconvenience and expenses to the world they are terrorizing. A dumba$$ with a failed shoebomb makes everybody take their shoes off to get on a plane. Another dumba$$ with a failed panties bomb causes hours of delays and more money spent on "security" around the world. Win or loose, the terrorists win.

 

I agree 110%

 

Common sense has fallen by the wayside. We react to the latest event instead of pro-actively taking the necessary steps.

 

Once again, we will give up something, in order to have the illusion of security.

 

BTW No one wants to see my full body scan.