Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
The Obama administration's anti-war campaign rhetoric and naive first-year promises continue to collide with reality. And happily, reality continues to prevail. The Obama administration has finally admitted, I think, that the Bush administration's decision to detain al Qaeda operatives and terrorists at Gitmo was sensible. It wasn't driven by some bizarre desire to mistreat terrorists, but instead was the best way to address security concerns without keeping them in Afghanistan or inside the United States.
It also turns out that the military commission trials too were a sensible decision. Civilian trials threaten the revelation of valuable intelligence in a covert war where hostilities are still ongoing. Military commissions allow a fair trial to be held but one that does not blow our wartime advantages. Meanwhile, the Obama administration's track record has been poor -- it was lucky to get the limited convictions that it has. Obama folks owe an apology to the Bush administration for their unjust criticism of military trials.
It should also be noted that Obama did not come to this turnabout after reasoned consideration alone. I think there are significant figures in the administration that would still love to close Gitmo tomorrow and give every terrorist the same exact trials reserved for Americans who commit garden-variety crimes. Congress dragged the administration kicking and screaming to this destination by cutting off funds for the transfer of any detainees from Gitmo to the U.S. This effectively used Congress's sole power of the purse to prevent Obama from making a grievous national security mistake. The new Congress should continue to keep the ban in its Defense spending bills to prevent Obama from another 180 degree turn.
| > |
More By John Yoo:
- Comment (35)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
It isn't the Al Qaeda operatives and terrorists held at Gitmo that bothered me – it was the innocent people held there by the Bush Administration for years on end, sometimes even after its own officials determined there wasn't any reason to believe that they were guilty of anything.
But those innocents are never acknowledged when defenders of Gitmo write about the prison. It's so easy to defend the Bush Administration's policies when you merely ignore its least defensible elements.
But it's much harder to defend when you confront this.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
" Obama folks owe an apology to the Bush administration for their unjust criticism of military trials." Nonsense, John. Their unjust criticism of military trials, their demands for shutting down Gitmo, accomplished what they intended all along: the election of a "Progressive" as President.
Jul '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Conor Friedersdorf:
But it's much harder to defend when you confront this. · Mar 7 at 7:01pm
Good sources, please.
Conor, this:
General Powell, who left the Bush Administration in 2005, angry about the misinformation that he unwittingly gave the world when he made the case for the invasion of Iraq at the UN, is understood to have backed Colonel Wilkerson’s declaration.
Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said —
doesn't inspire confidence. And this:
Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”
strikes me as ludicrous.
Perhaps I'm a fool, but:
Do we have numbers for detained-to-charged among Gitmo residents?
Do they suggest these claims are plausible?
Are you even trying to determine the validity of the claims?
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
"It isn't the Al Qaeda operatives and terrorists held at Gitmo that bothered me – it was the innocent people held there by the Bush Administration for years on end, sometimes even after its own officials determined there wasn't any reason to believe that they were guilty of anything."
Conor, are you really more exercised about several hundred individuals detained in Gitmo than about the many thousands killed and maimed, and tens of millions terrorized and cowed into submission, by Islamic terrorists?
The article you linked spoke of 500 inmates released from Gitmo over the years. Haven't about a quarter of these "innocents" in fact returned to the battlefield to kill civilians as well as American soldiers?
And now the Obama Administration prefers to kill suspected terrorists in airstrikes - with plenty of collateral deaths and without obtaining valuable intelligence from the suspects. Better all around had he continued a policy of casting a wide net and releasing anyone swept up in error.
Edited on March 8, 2011 at 4:42amRe: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Easy for you to say, Stuart. Would you feel the same way if it were innocent Americans, as opposed to innocent Pakistanis, being swept up despite their innocence and being held for years on end? You write, "are you really more exercised about several hundred individuals detained in Gitmo than about the many thousands killed and maimed, and tens of millions terrorized and cowed into submission, by Islamic terrorists?" No, you just created that comparison out of thin air.
I am extremely exercised about Islamist terrorists and the people they victimize. That is perfectly compatible with being distraught that an American president held innocents captive for years even after knowing their guilelessness.
Now, I can at least appreciate that some commenters acknowledge these costs and argue they were worth it. But reading Yoo, you'd never even know that these innocents existed.
Here's another source for the doubters among you.
Jan '11
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Conor Friedersdorf
Easy for you to say, Stuart. Would you feel the same way if it were innocent Americans, as opposed to innocent Pakistanis, being swept up despite their innocence and being held for years on end?
...
Now, I can at least appreciate that some commenters acknowledge these costs and argue they were worth it. But reading Yoo, you'd never even know that these innocents existed.
Here's another source for the doubters among you. · Mar 7 at 8:09pm
Conor,
What would you have preferred?
War does not often offer good options and policy makers often have to choose between those that are bad and worse. Of all the possible indignities that can befall someone in a war zone, there are many worse than being detained by the US at Gitmo.
So again, what policy would you have preferred?
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Conor Friedersdorf
Easy for you to say, Stuart. Would you feel the same way if it were innocent Americans, as opposed to innocent Pakistanis, being swept up despite their innocence and being held for years on end?
Here's another source for the doubters among you. · Mar 7 at 8:09pm
Better I and my family should be swept up as innocents, held for years, and ultimately released than to be preemptively blown to bits as suspects.
You cite an article about 82 Gitmo detainees cleared of charges of making war against the USA -- but note that the obstacle to their release wasn't the USA but rather their home countries that either refused their return or threatened to torture them when they got home. And while the USA decided charges against these people couldn't stick, that's not the same as factual innocence. Would you sponsor them for asylum here and put them up in your home, confident as you are of their innocence?
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
I note also that the enlightened UK has not been able to resolve this issue any better than has the USA. Maybe France has, though:
Watching the control orders debate from the other side of the Channel, it was striking how the land of liberté, fraternité, égalité and the droits de l’homme is far less sentimental about dealing with those who threaten the republic.
The central challenge is what to do with the small number of individuals who pose a threat to society. Inside the security services there is a grudging admiration for the way the French do it.
For a start, they don’t hand out citizenship with the ease that the Brits do; they play hardball with deportations: suspects who refuse to get on a plane are told their family will be deported as well unless they go; and those they can’t deport, they deal with in other ways.
One official recounted how one French Islamist hardliner was deliberately sent to a prison in Corsica: “The Corsicans hate Muslims. And he was the only one there. He very quickly dropped his enthusiasm for Islam and we didn’t have any more trouble from him.” Ouch.
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
You guys are all very smart and make good points but an apology still is deserved. They didn't consider any of the points you're making when they attacked Bush on this. They just turned it into a cartoon to score points from dumb dumbs. "Bush and Chaney like to torture people" like Boris and Natasha like to throw round bombs with sparkling wicks poking out of them.
I want an apology from the people who vilified me and my positions over this. No harm in asking. And yes I will hold my breath if I have to. It's important to me.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Joe, they haven't apologized for supporting Stalin or Mao. They're still trying to tell us that our "Islamophobia" is more evil than suicide bombs in mosques. So while you deserve an apology, expecting them to give you one is like expecting a maple tree to give cow's milk: their nature precludes them from ever admitting their error, much less expressing remorse for it.
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
I think President Bush’s policies were correct: Guantanamo as a prison for Islamist terrorists, and military tribunals rather than civilian trials for those incarcerated there. I would like to think that President Obama intellectually supports these Bush policies, but cynic that I am, I believe he is merely getting ready to defend his record on terrorism in the 2012 elections as the incidents of Islamist terrorism become more frequent worldwide. As Jim Geragthy of NRO freqently says "All of Barack Obama's statements come with an expiration date."
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Who is the "they" in this sentence exactly?
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Gitmo must be put in perspective. Isn't that obvious by now?
There may have been some entirely, completely, and totally innocent people incarcerated in Gitmo. Maybe. However, indications are the overwhelmingly vast majority of even those released were not entirely innocent of everything and anything. In comparison, there are certainly innocent people being held in our own domestic prison system. Periodically their innocence is discovered and they are released. No system can be perfect. The only way to be certain innocents are never incarcerated is to never imprison anyone.
Putting this further in perspective, when we bomb, launch Hellfire missiles from Predator drones, and engage in ground combat operations innocent civilians are sometimes inadvertently, accidentally, and unintentionally killed, even though we take great pains to prevent this from happening. Should we cease all such operations unless we know with 100% certainty no innocents will be killed? Can a war be fought and won this way, especially when the enemy does not value innocent lives?
Finally, Gitmo has been under the control of the self-righteous, holier-than-thou, hyper-critical crowd for over two years now. If they are still holding obvious innocents in Gitmo, why is that?
Edited on March 8, 2011 at 4:15pmDec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Conor Friedersdorf
Who is the "they" in this sentence exactly? · Mar 7 at 11:12pm
The people who vilified Joe and his positions on Gitmo, of course. Since I was replying to Joe by name, you might have inferred that I was addressing his complaint.
Do you identify with that group, Conor?
And is it always really all about you?
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
John, you'll get a kick out of this:
Andrew Sullivan is annoyed that Obama reversed his position on Gitmo. Why? Because it means you get to gloat.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/03/the-costs-of-obamas-gitmo-reversal.html
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Conor and others pointing the finger of guilt at the Bush admin should note that a very large part of the reason some were held so long is that the Dems obstructed all attempts to put a system of due process in place.
The Bush admin rejected civilian courts for good reason. The Dems, libs, and ACLU went ballistic. The Bush admin requested Congressional approval of a military tribunal process. The Dems, libs, and ACLU went nuts, protesting and obstructing it well into 2006. By the time the system was in place and the first cases ready for trial we were into the 2007-2008 election campaign. It became a campaign issue and so the Bush admin did not move aggressively forward with it. After taking office Obama and Holder rejected the Congressionally approved military tribunal process and again pushed for civilian trials.
If military tribunals were in place by 2004 and allowed to proceed, many already released may have been released earlier, and some still held may have been released by now.
Despite all of this, 75% of all detainees have been released, the vast majority by the Bush admin.
The Dems have played politics with the Gitmo detainees.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
I will start giving a care for inmates at Gitmo, "innocent" or not, when I stop having my sympathy and empathy forced elsewhere by incidents like this:
A car bomb planted by suspected Islamic militants exploded at a petrol station in Pakistan's Punjab province, killing at least 22 and wounding more than 140.
And when our enemies put a stop to abhorrent things like this:
A video believed to feature Pashtun school children in south-east Afghanistan recreating a terrorist attack has been posted on social networking sites.
The 84-second clip appears to show a veiled boy bid farewell to his friends before approaching a group of children nearby and blowing himself up.
Sand is tossed in the air to simulate the detonation as children fall to the ground. As the dust settles, their playmates gather round and pretend to identify the dead.
Until then, I'm satisfied that the Gitmo detainees past and present got their three hots and a cot, along with various other creature comforts. My heart bleeds enough already: I haven't a drop to spare for those individuals.
Jan '11
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Stuart Creque: I will start giving a care for inmates at Gitmo, "innocent" or not, when I stop having my sympathy and empathy forced elsewhere by incidents like this:
...
Until then, I'm satisfied that the Gitmo detainees past and present got their three hots and a cot, along with various other creature comforts. My heart bleeds enough already: I haven't a drop to spare for those individuals. · Mar 8 at 10:36am
I wish to point out that Stuart just justified the detention of "innocent" prisoners because a group of children pretended to be guilty of the disgusting crime the detainees were accused of committing.
Dec '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Tom Meyer
Stuart Creque: I will start giving a care for inmates at Gitmo, "innocent" or not, when I stop having my sympathy and empathy forced elsewhere by incidents like this:
...
Until then, I'm satisfied that the Gitmo detainees past and present got their three hots and a cot, along with various other creature comforts. My heart bleeds enough already: I haven't a drop to spare for those individuals. · Mar 8 at 10:36am
I wish to point out that Stuart just justified the detention of "innocent" prisoners because a group of children pretended to be guilty of the disgusting crime the detainees were accused of committing. · Mar 9 at 3:48pm
Spare a thought for the fact that when their loving teachers come to them to do in real life what they've enacted in play a thousand times, they will be conditioned to it and won't question it.
I don't "justify" the detention of innocent men at Gitmo -- but as I said, I can't spare them any of my compassion as they watch 18 channels of cable television while generations of Muslim children are raised to be disposable like so many cattle.
Jul '10
Re: Obama's Guantanamo Turnabout
Tom Meyer
I wish to point out that Stuart just justified the detention of "innocent" prisoners because a group of children pretended to be guilty of the disgusting crime the detainees were accused of committing. · Mar 9 at 3:48pm
I wish to point out that Stuart described the nature of our enemy.
I wish to point out that Conor's credulous acceptance of Col. Wilkerson's screed is disappointing. Amnesty International (hardly a pro-detention outfit) says that 40% of detainees have no "definitive" connection to Al-Qaeda, and 18% who have no "definitive" connection to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. This in a "fact sheet" clearly designed as anti-detention propaganda.
Which begs the following questions:
Why assume the evil Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld- Hitler cabal knew that "the vast majority" of detainees were innocent?
Why is Amnesty International so much more circumspect than Conor's source?
How can we evict the right-wing, pro-American nutjobs from AI?
I'd also note that Obama would've loved, loved, to have exonerated nearly everyone detained at Gitmo, if he could've provided chapter & verse regarding detainees' innocence. Yet, he didn't.