Obama Does Bush On GTMO

When the Nobel Committee tried to explain its existentially inexplicable decision to award the Peace Prize to President Barack Obama in 2009, one of the things they mentioned was the President's promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The absurdity and corruption of the award was fully evident at the time. The problem with awarded noble promises with Noble prizes has been realized now. From the Washington Post:

President Barack Obama reversed course Monday and ordered a resumption of military trials for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, making his once ironclad promise to close the isolated prison look even more distant.

That's two major promises broken, in case you're counting: the promise to close GTMO and the promise to try detainees in civilian courts. Obama will restart the military tribunals originally planned by the Bush Administration.

The President's executive order seems to break a third promise, or so I would think if I on the President's left. Again from the WaPo:

President Obama signed an executive order Monday that will create a formal system of indefinite detention for those held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who continue to pose a significant threat to national security.

The phrase "indefinite detention" is not without force. It means that some detainees will be held indefinitely without trial. I would wonder, if I were one of those people who cheered when candidate Obama promised to correct the inequities of the Bush Administration, who won in 2008. Dana Milbank concludes that it was Bush, and Bush wasn't even running.

Not only had he revoked his pledge to close Gitmo within a year, but he also had contradicted his claim that a detention policy "can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone." His executive order did exactly what he said must not be done, in a style favored by his predecessor in the Oval Office.

"This detention without trial - what's different from the Bush administration?" a French reporter from Le Monde asked on the call.

The WaPo editorial is rhetorically even handed when it comes to blame.

At the start of his administration, Mr. Obama called for the prison's closure. Two years later, that goal appears as far out of reach as ever, thanks largely to unconscionable congressional restrictions that have hampered his ability to prosecute or transfer detainees. Mr. Obama shares in the blame for not fighting aggressively to reverse this regrettable intrusion.

Of course, it is the President's job to make policy on such matters and for two years his party commanded both houses of Congress. Perhaps one should not make Noble Prize-winning promises unless one is sure of one's own commitment and one's power to deliver. President Obama never produced a coherent plan for dealing with the GTMO detainees and so he has had to fall back to Bush Administration policy.

Perhaps the President didn't really invest himself in the policy process, as if he were the sort of person who could fail to do that. Perhaps the awful truth is that Bush got it right and there is no viable alternative. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I am sure of the one and inclined toward the other.

Militant Islam in general and terrorism in particular present terrible problems that neither ordinary criminal law nor military justice are well equipped to deal with. What does a Commander in Chief do with someone who was seized in circumstances not conducive to the gathering of evidence but whom, the President thinks, is very certain to work murderous mischief against the United States if ever he is released? I know! You don't release him. Period. If you do release him, perhaps at the request of some court, and he goes on to kill a lot of kids playing soccer and the American people come to understand exactly what happened, that might not be conducive to any future respect on the part of the latter toward civil liberties or human rights.

The American left excoriated the Bush Administration for its anti-terrorism policy and especially for its GTMO policy. It appears that Bush got it mostly right. If you don't believe me, ask his successor.

Comments

[BillW]

Once again the old adage 'There are few things in life more tragic than to see your beautiful theories murdered by a gang of brutal facts' is affirmed. It must be truly sad in the White House to see theory after theory die in such ignomious fashion.

[Jimi]

It is easy to make promises when you have no responsibility.

It is difficult to keep promises based on principle when the responsibility is yours.

Time and Time again this President throws principle to the wind and chooses the path of least resistance.

[William]

What's really sad is the country has to pay the price for the White House's murdered theories...

[BillW]

Sadder yet William is that the country duly elected and put a hapless theorist in the White House

[larry kurtz]

Ken: I could kiss you; thank you for affirming President Obama's commitment to normalizing relations with Cuba! It's sneaky, I'll give you that; but, The Right is too stupid to see it coming.

"Beyond the headlines, however, exists a deep history of unresolved issues associated with Guantanamo Bay's U.S. Naval Base, itself merely the tip of a 47 year political iceberg. The idea of conceding the base at Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba, which the U.S. gained control of in the 1903 U.S.-Cuba Pact, has, as of late, gained traction in Latin America and throughout the world. It would certainly standout as an act of generous goodwill by the US, and could potentially result in a range of reciprocal positive actions from Cuba."

http://www.fpa.org/topics_info2414/topics_info_show.htm?doc_id=906355

[BillW]

You maybe ought to refrain from kissing him full on the mouth just yet Larry. In your euphoria you apparently missed where the article said ...

"However, President Obama is very well aware of the many complex issues arising from such a gesture. There are numerous considerations which Cuba would need to address ... remedy its policy on human rights ... adopt an acceptable version of democracy ... release of political prisoners ... restitution of outstanding Cuban confiscated property claims ... restitution of US Corporate interests and properties ... restitution to the families of Brothers to the Rescue over Cuba's fatal downing of two search planes ... and a series of other Cuban misdeeds."

In fact Larry, I bet every American President - even the evil Republican ones - would have normalized relations with Cuba if they were willing to step up to the list of wrongdoing in the article you cited.

Did you really miss all that in the article? Or were you trying to pull the wool over ol' Ken's eyes?

More curious as to why you are so fired up in love with guys that commit the litany of sins listed in the article ...

Just wondering ...

[Jimi]

BillW,

Larry could care less about Cuba......His one trick pony can only do hate America first tricks.

[larry kurtz]

The 800-pound white guerrilla in the rheum.

[larry kurtz]

Think of it as propinquitous fungibility, Bill.

[George Mason]

Larry always provides positive confirmation that liberalism is politics for the simple minded.

[larry kurtz]

The Liberals won't touch me, GM. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4e3-YK3rVA

[Ken Blanchard]

Larry: you are welcome to post on this blog. You make me look balanced and reasonable, and you certainly add color. Though I find your cryptic comments wearisome and your occasional tendency to make unfounded comments about my character offensive, I'm a big tent kind of guy. However, you are strictly forbidden to kiss me.

[Jimi]

"However, you are strictly forbidden to kiss me"

Hey Larry.....how about a kiss where the sun don't shine?

Please.......and Thank You!