Posted by
Patrick Henry on Friday, May 22, 2009 2:44:10 PM
President Obama and his administration vowed yesterday to stay the course on
the abolition of "harsh interrogation" and the closure of the prison camp at
Guantamo Bay. Critics within both parties seem to disagree, but the single-themed
justification is that Gitmo is a "stain on America" as long as it remains open, and
that it is a symbol to the world of how this nation lost its way
Whatever one thinks of such a rationale, it is revisionist to deny that America
bashing abroad (and among leftists at home) was in full vogue long before
details of the Guantanamo interrogations emerged. To serious analysts persistence
on closing Gitmo seems far more a token concession to the left at home than an
image modifier for the rest of the world, most of whose governments know full
well why so-called "turture" was utlized to extract information.
While Obama wishes to characterize himself and his party as the White Knights of
Justice, and Bush and the Republicans as the dark forces of evil, the media
sensationalization of the CIA "torture" rationale and the yet-to-be seen "abuse"
photos do far more to obscure than to clarify the legtimate differences between
the differing styles and points of view. The Bush administration was consistent
in holding that the non-uniformed, non-flagged thugs who represented no
legitimate government, violated every law and code of war and frequently used
innocent civialians as human shields were NOT soldiers at all, but unlawful
enemy combatants, criminals, morderers intent on harming Americans. As
such they merit no standing as prisoners of war and detention at Guantanamo Bay
was a merciful alternative to simply shooting them at the point of capture, which
American forces would have been entitled to do. Obama, on the other hand, seems
determined to accord the same men not only POW status, but the same rights as
those of crminals detained within the American justice system. He holds that the courts
have already ruled on that matter and so he has no choice. And yet is yesterday's speech
he made it quite clear that in some instances he would reserve such a choice.
Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney made impassioned arguments for
both points of view in televised speeches yesterday. And objective viewers would
have to concede valid points in both. But neither seems to have definiively
resolved the issue of what to do with the Gitmo detainees or, for that matter, with
future terrorists who may be similarly captured on the battlefields in Afghanistan or
Pakistan. And those are the questions Americans want answers to.
It would be logistically impossible and fiscally prohibitive to launch FBI
investigations and Justice Department prosecutions for each future detainee. It
simply can't be done. So do we (a) just shoot them where they stand, (b) bring
them home and incarcerate them in our prisons where they may escape or live
out their years on the taxpayer dole, or (c) re-name Guantanamo Bay or build
someplace else just like it? Each alternative involves significant moral, fiscal,
legal and logistical drawbacks. So what's the plan?
Further, it is well known that a significant percentage of those already released
from Gitmo, not the worst of the worst who remain there now, have returned to
the field, striving to kill American soldiers. So exactly how many American lives
is the "moral high ground" worth? A hundred, five-hundred, ten thousand, another
9/11? It's a question that needs answering.
And since we have disavowed "harsh interrogation" as a means of extracting
information from captured terrorists, what is the alternative plan? Obama talks
about "more traditonal means," although his lack of military and intelligence
background hardly inspires confidence in such a judgment, and those means
are uncomfortably vague. While the notion that the "international community"
will think better of us may have limited merit, the idea that Muslim contries
will do so while we continue killing or detaining brother Muslims in combat is
highly doubtful, and the premise that radicalized terrorists will be more likely
to lay down their arms is plain preposterous.
So it seems that the premature (i.e., without a plan) decision to shut down
Gitmo is a symbolic gesture, a gigantic public relations stunt in support of
Obama's hat-in-hand mea culpa approach to foreign diplomacy. It has caused
an incredible mess, pitting congress against itself and further dividing American
opinion and may, depending on whathappens to the detainees, put Americans
further at risk. And it may well be that seizing the "moral high ground," if such
exists in situations such as this one, ends up sinking America up to the eyebrows
in a swamp devoid of common sense.