Released Gitmo Terrorist Returns to Al Qaeda: Obama Should Reconsider Closing Gitmo

If you want proof the closing Guantanamo is a bad idea, you can find it today's headlines.

Apparently, a former Gitmo prisoner named Said Ali al-Shihri has emerged as the second-ranking Al Qaeda leader in the nation of Yemen.

From what I'm reading, we handed this guy over to the Saudis, who put him through some sort of "jihadist rehabilitation program" -- and then let him loose on the streets.

Now, in all fairness, al-Shihri is supposedly the first graduate of the program to return to terrorism, so maybe it is statistically somewhat effective -- but all it takes is one mistake ...

The rise of al-Shihri should give pause to our new president -- and his plans to close the detention center at Guantanamo. After all, if this situation could arise during a time when there was criticism that the Bush Administration was too reluctant to release prisoners, imagine what could happen under a more liberal program. The closing of Gitmo, of course, could become a salient political issue in 2010 and 2012. And while Democrats are currently enjoying much success, they would be wise to avoid returning to the narrative that they are weak on crime and national security issues (how long will it be before we see a "revolving door" TV ad on this topic?)

Yesterday's hastily-produced executive orders were much more about political theater than about proper management of detainees -- and this situation should show President Obama that he needs to carefully weigh the implications of his decisions before he throws too many bones to his far-left base.

If he does go ahead with the closing -- which he has promised his base -- we can at least hope he finds a way to keep the detainees behind bars for the time being – because there will be a lot more al-Shihris if we just hand these people off to whatever countries they came from.

Perhaps our best hope is that Obama either changes his mind (thus, breaking a campaign promise) -- or that he merely moves the worst offenders to a new -- but equally as tough and remote -- detention center (which would mean he literally kept his promise, though he would be breaking the "spirit" of his promise). The latter choice would be good PR -- and would not endanger the lives of Americans ...