There have been reports that a radical left-wing organization is responsible for helping to free a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay named Abu Sufian bin Qumu. Bin Qumu has been cited by multiple sources at Fox News as at least being involved with, and possibly playing the lead role in the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Those attacks resulted in the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American diplomats.
Michelle Malkin has revealed that the Center for Constitutional Rights represented Qumu and helped lead the charge in freeing him back in 2007.
Longtime readers know that I’ve extensively covered the troublesome conflict of interest at the Department of Justice involving Attorney General Eric Holder and his former law firm, Covington and Burling, which has represented a score of Gitmo detainees. See my archive of posts on the matter here. Many readers have asked whether the firm represented Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the former Gitmo detainee released in 2007 — and now named as the possible lead plotter in the bloody attacks on our consulate personnel, staff, and private security contractors in Benghazi.
The left-wing organization that helped spring Qumu was the Center for Constitutional Rights. Last April, the group issued an indignant press release painting Qumu as a harmless victim and blasting those concerned about his unrepentant jihadi ways. After a trove of Gitmo documents found their way to Wikileaks and were published by the New York Times, CCR rose to Qumu’s defense and parroted jihadi propaganda that the aggrieved Qumu was actually a friend of the U.S.
of the CCR, Michael Ratner, has long advocated for closing Guantanamo Bay's doors, and for the rights of Gitmo detainees within. In a 2009 article for the Huffington Post
, Ratner sings the praises of his organization's efforts, calling the release of two thirds of Gitmo detainees an "amazing success".
While feeling that terrorists caught on the battlefield were privy to the same rights as ordinary Americans, Ratner also repeatedly advocated for the prosecution of senior-level Bush administration officials, calling the detention of those terrorists, like bin Qumu, unlawful. His op-ed for CNN made a case for prosecuting former President George W. Bush for torture under the War Crimes Act.
In other words, terrorists captured on the battlefield were being held illegally, but the Bush administration officials who were gathering intelligence from those terrorists should be tried for war crimes.
In 2008, Ratner signed an endorsement for Barack Obama in his presidential bid, based on a belief that Obama would best represent the rights of Gitmo detainees. He and 79 other lawyers said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to, "restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community."
Ratner, on the same day as endorsing Obama in word, also endorsed through donation, sending $2,300 to the Obama campaign.
Sadly for Ratner, much like other voters in 2008, he became disillusioned with President Obama, stating recently that there is little difference between the humans rights policies of Obama and those of Bush.
The question now is, will Ratner also call for Obama to be charged for war crimes violations?
And will he admit the danger involved in releasing terrorists that have a high rate of recidivism upon gaining freedom? His organization played a key role in the release of a man who would later launch a terrorist attack on sovereign U.S. soil.