stay connected

FrumForum Facebook FrumForum YouTube Update Twitter FrumForum Flickr

Terror Experts: No Rehab for Gitmo Detainees

November 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm Elise Cooper | 5 Comments |

| Print

Recently, the Washington Post reported that the Obama Administration has expressed a desire to send some Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo to a “rehabilitation program” run by the Saudi government for violent jihadists.  FrumForum interviewed experts on Saudi Arabia as well as former high ranking CIA officials to learn more about the Saudi experiment. All of the experts who spoke with FF emphatically opposed sending Yemeni detainees to participate in the Saudi terrorist rehab program.

First, the experts cautioned that “rehabilitation” has different meanings in Saudi Arabia than to Americans, and stressed that the program’s methods were uniquely rooted in Saudi culture. One high-ranking former CIA official noted that the way Saudis “deal with extremists is completely alien to the way we think, so much of it is cultural context. The word ‘rehab’ means something different to them.”  Another former CIA official agreed and noted that we cannot evaluate the program “only through the prism of our western culture.”

Furthermore, the Saudi program was designed only for Saudis and authorities never intended it to work with other nationalities. Everyone FrumForum spoke with agreed with the assessment of Isobel Coleman, a Saudi expert for the Council on Foreign Relations.  Coleman stated that it is not fair to import others to the program because of the uniquely Saudi approach to rehabilitation: “the Saudis are trying to deal at the ideological level and make the program successful.”  Another former CIA official agreed, stating simply: “It’s a program for Saudis.”

A former CIA official told FrumForum that the Saudis are being pressured by the Obama administration to take the Yemeni detainees.  John Burgess, a former senior officer who worked at the Saudi Arabian embassy, questions the motives of the Obama administration. President Obama, he said, “just wants the problem to go away.  He hastily made a campaign promise that is now proving extremely difficult to keep.”  So far, all interviewed pointed out that the Saudis have not explicitly agreed to take non-Saudi detainees.  Burgess summarized the Saudi attitude to expanding their rehab program: “they said they would be willing to consider taking a few Yemenites.  They are not saying no, not saying yes, and basically just ignoring it.  They are not eager to take other countries’ bad guys.”

A major obstacle appears to be the Saudi government’s wariness of foreigners.  In order for someone to go through the program, Saudi authorities expect the terrorist’s family members to cooperate and be actively involved.  Including family members in the rehabilitation approach would mean that 30 to 40 family members per detainee would also have to be allowed into Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are not very enthusiastic to receive Yemeni detainees and their extended families, especially considering that Yemen is heading toward a civil war. Yemini extremists are gaining more power and have even attempted to cross the border to attack Saudi Arabia.

Also, there is much uncertainty about the workings of the program.  The methods seem to vary for each participant. One former CIA official noted that the program’s methods are “a combination of intimidation and inducements” to renounce violence. The Saudi rehab program is also highly selective about which terrorists are accepted. Terrorists selected for participation are those whom authorities believe can actually be “reformed.” Burgess stressed that Saudi authorities will only consider those individuals who have already expressed a willingness to be reformed and are open to changing their beliefs. Another former CIA official agreed with this approach, noting that “there must be a selective process to choose the ones they think can be rehabilitated.”  Again, this unique approach may not mesh with the Obama administration’s plans.  Isobel Coleman stated that some of the detainees left at Guantanamo Bay are “cold blooded, unrepentant, head choppers who want to do it again, I am not sure that it is a good idea because rehabilitation will not work.  They don’t want to be rehabilitated.” A former CIA official reiterated that the Saudis need to be cautious and selective in their use of the program.  “The Saudis need to continue to sanction donors, to take down cells, and to selectively look at the rehabilitation program and not over reach.”

Another major problem with the Obama administration’s plan is uncertainty about the effectiveness of the rehabilitation program.  The consensus opinion about the program is that it has approximately an 80% success rate.  A former CIA official pointed out that the program requires continuous monitoring and it is too soon to judge, since it is only three years old.  Coleman agrees and explained that “in the US there are mechanisms to track paroled criminals.  In the Saudi program the mechanisms are not tight enough.  The issue is the guys who will say what the Saudis want them to say so that they can get out, play nice and make their way back to Yemen.  Some of these guys never left the Jihad route.” A high ranking former CIA official went farther, stating that “rehabilitation will never mean that they will not want to kill us.  Its do they kill us?”

Recent Posts by Elise Cooper



5 Comments so far ↓

  • jreb

    While release and rehabilitation of Gitmo detainees may sound like a noble gesture, the risks in doing so at this time may not justify the means in doing so. As has been pointed out the Saudi method seems to be having some success. The program is still too young to be judged as a success and the Saudi program appears to have been modified from its original plan in that under the original Saudi plan the Saudi detainees were tried before a Saudi court and charged with several offenses. If convicted they served up to two years before entering the rehabilitation program, however there appears to have been a change in the program in that individuals are no longer charged with crimes but are allowed to enter directly into the rehab plan for a truncated period of time, only several months. While the government of Yemen has agreed to receive its nationals from Gitmo, at the beginning of this year Yemen had no program, curriculum or facility in place to process returning Yemeni nationals. Closure of Gitmo by the end of this year was an appealing campaign strategy for the Obama administration, however in reality it appears to be a very risky proposition.

  • Reality Chick

    It seems that a Saudi terrorist “rehab program” is harder to get into than Harvard University and with a questionable success rate even for Saudi nationals.
    Let’s not forget that one “drop out” can translate to multiple innocent lives lost.
    Remind me…Who is the genius that came up with this idea?
    Gitmo is looking more and more appealing as time goes on.

  • Reason60

    Has anyone here seen any evidence any of these detainees are dangerous?
    Or are we just ready to accept the government’s word for it that they are scary dangerous guys?
    If we call ourselves conservatives, shouldn’t we be a bit more skeptical of government claims?
    If these are prisoners of war captured on a battlefield, then lets repatriate them; if we have evidence they were planning an attack, lets see it in open court.

    We have rules and laws for a reason- so that the government can’t just sweep up people and hold them at the whim of the King, er, President.

    Because if the government can just pick someone up, call them a terrorist, and hold them forever, then Glenn Beck should be even more nervous than he is.

  • sinz54

    Reason60: Has anyone here seen any evidence any of these detainees are dangerous?
    If our soldiers capture a guy on the Afghan battlefields who has been chopping the heads off Afghans who are loyal to the Kabul government, what would you suggest we do with him? Read him his Miranda rights?

    We are at WAR, and these terrorists are NOT just common criminals. They are civilian warfighters.

    FYI, in past wars going all the way back to the Franco-Prussian War, enemy civilian warfighters, when caught, were usually SHOT on the spot. No trial, no POW camp, nothing.

    The mere fact that these guys are still alive is testament to America’s restraint and forbearance.

  • Reason60

    “They are civilian warfighters”
    Cite your sources;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seton_Hall_reports
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/yoo/

    These are my sources, which discuss how not all of the detainees were captured during fighting on the battlefield; some were in fact picked up at their homes, at checkpoints, based on tips from unknown sources.
    See, this is my point- the government makes a grand pronouncement that these are “civilian warfighters”, and paints a pictire of deadly terrorists machine gunning our troops, and everyone buys it.
    The fact is, we have no way of knowing how many of these were actually like that, and how many were just innocent people picked up for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. the government’s standards were so lax, that anyone who got fingerd by a enemy with a grudge, could be picked up and shipped off to Gitmo or Bagram on the flimsiest of grounds.

    I have no problem detaining actual fighters, found on a real battlefield; but this is like sweeping up German civilians and calling them SS stormtroopers; it just doesn’t wash.

Leave a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.