Spies at Gitmo |

Spies at Gitmo

The emerging spy scandal at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorism suspects should be shaking this nation to its Skivvies.

Senior Air Force Airman Ahmad al Halabi, an Arabic translator, and Army Capt. James J. Yee, an Islamic chaplain, are charged with espionage and aiding the enemy. They face the death penalty if convicted on the most serious charges. And there may be others involved, investigators say.

Astounding it is that Mr. al Halabi was sent to the Cuban naval base despite having been under investigation for nearly a year. And then there’s word that the three Islamic groups listed in a Pentagon policy statement on chaplain accreditation have links to radical Islam.

And just which “enemy” this pair allegedly was aiding remains unclear.

The New York Post reported Friday that al Halabi “likely was working for Islamic extremists connected to al-Qaida,” through Syria, but not necessarily involving the Damascus government.

The official U.S. government line is that both suspects, with strong Syrian ties — al Halabi was born there, Mr. Yee studied there — aided Damascus, a regime on the State Department’s list of states sponsoring terrorism.

But there’s also this: some whispering, given the CIA’s recent establishment of a “relationship” with Syrian intelligence, about a possible counter -intelligence operation.

What’s going on here• Let’s get some answers.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.