It is an understatement to say that I am disappointed in the extent to which Obama has continued Bush policies, for example the continued existence of the Guantánamo facility, and the war in Afghanistan (against whom, exactly?). But at least this will be treated as a criminal case in a court of law. Reading between the lines, it seems that the case against this guy might be shaky; he has been charged with one count of "conspiracy to kill Americans" but is being described as a "propagandist." But that is why we have trials, and I think we should all be pleased that there will be one in this case.
But we are not all pleased. Mitch McConnell, for one, isn´t at all happy. He reportedly released a statement saying that Abu Ghaith has knowledge of Al Qaeda activities and should have been sent to Guantánimo Bay. He accused Obama of being more concerned with closing Guantánimo than he is with national security.
At Guantánimo, he could be held as a detainee and fulsomely and continuously interrogated without having to overcome the objections of his civilian lawyers.”Ah, those damn civilian lawyers. How exactly McConnell knows what Abu Ghaith has knowledge of should, perhaps, make McConnell a subject of interrogation also.
I only wish Obama truly were more concerned with closing Guantánimo, and returning to some of the principles which used to distinguish us creditably in the world. Contrary to Bush´s frequent assertion that his number one job was the protection of American lives, the President´s number one job is the protection of the constitution.
This is the Presidential oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.Guantánimo Bay and the nebulous "war on terror" just don´t fit very well within the scope of that oath.
4 comments:
There are several statements in your post that deserve further consideration, not least among them your contention that the US has enjoyed something that "used to distinguish us creditably in the world." While I am no expert, I have heard for many years, particularly from the liberal side of the aisle, that our reputation is tarnished.
Also, your claim that McConnell knows enough to be interrogated is a bit strange...sort of the initial reaction of any totalitarian regime, though. Let's go after the critics.
Now we come to the real issue--why do we owe a foreign citizen who has expressed the desire to kill Americans and who was associated and perhaps instrumental in the killing of thousands in the World Trade center a civilian trial, like he was a citizen of the US? If this guy does not deserve to be treated as an enemy, who does?
Finally, when did you become a fan of the Constitution? Haven't you repeatedly reported your disappointment with this outdated and ineffective document? Also, haven't I heard you complain about putting American lives in jeopardy with military actions? Isn't that a priority? You should applaud Bush for that one, but that might be sorta painful?
Bob - Sometimes I post just for you.
1. Not sure I understand your first paragraph. I can´t tell if you are agreeing or not that our reputation is tarnished in the world.
2. McConnell says he knows that Abu Ghaith has certain information. For that reason I, sarcastically, suggested he perhaps needs a little interrogation of his own to find out how he happens to know that.
3. U.S. laws apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. The attack on the WTC was a crime, not an act of war, as was declared at the time, and which fiction has been maintained. States can commit acts of war, and states can declare war on each other. If we are going to pretend that we are "at war" as long as we have "enemies" abroad in the world, then we might as well admit we plan to remain forever in a state of permanent war. If the people who want to do harm to the US are ever neutralized, it will be through police work and not military actions.
4.Yes, I have called the constitution imbecilic, but it is still all we have. The rest of the paragraph about putting American lives in jeopardy and applauding Bush, I just don´t understand no matter how many times I reread it.
As regards our tarnished reputation in the world, it´s worth pointing out that we captured this Abu Ghaith in Japan, because of police/intelligence work.
Countries around the world are not going to cooperate with us if we claim the right to arrest people anywhere we want and slap them into Guantánimo for as long as we feel like it.
It was misconceived from the outset, just as was the "war on terror," but the only possible justification for Guantánimo was as a prison for POWs.
I guess everybody who hates America (or hates our freedom, as Bush liked to say) now qualifies as an enemy combatant?
I appreciate that you post "just for me," but my vague and contradictory statements are just the result of my ineffective use of the language, not an attempt to incite you to do anything.
Of course we recognize that all statements made immediately upon recognizing a horror such as the WTC "crime" are to be taken literally and forever, and I think that I can agree with you that police work is the best potential weapon for neutralizing threats such as those posed by terrorists. But sometimes there are just no police, or the ones in charge are worse than ineffective police. Such was the case with the Taliban controlled areas.
Not very well put, but the last part, about applauding Bush: you criticized him for his assertion that he should protect American lives. You have said (and it is difficult to take an opposing position) that the government should not put American lives in jeopardy. I thought it was a weak argument that his "number one" job ought to be upholding the Constitution...but apparently protecting lives isn't one of the duties outlined in the Constitution?
Of course I agree that the US reputation is and has been "tarnished" (or quite a lot worse) in the world for a long time. Choosing where to draw the line between offending a radical goofball who attacks and kills his own citizens over whether we should put him in a military prison or somewhere else seems ridiculous to me. We should do what is in the best interests of the US, as seen by the people who are directly involved and who have all the information.
In answer to your jab at McConnell, aren't officials like him privy to briefings that describe such information? Now, that information can be wrong. For instance, when Hussein (Saddam, not Barack) claimed he had weapons of mass destruction, was building more and demonstrated that he was not opposed to using them on his own people (the Kurds), it turned out to be a lie and the information was wrong. Leaders like FDR, Churchill and Eisenhower were faced with those problems all the time and often acted improperly, e.g. FDR on Japan. But, it is the best we have, like the Constitution.
Not everyone who hates America is an enemy. However, I see no reason to treat the haters with the same courtesies as we treat our friends. Do you think we should bring every pirate captured in Somalia trying to hijack a ship to our country, provide him a lawyer and a comfortable spot in a prison with a tv and three squares?
Do US laws apply universally to citizens and non-citizens alike? I had never actually heard it put that way.
Post a Comment