The Weekly Standard has an article up, Al Qaeda's Civil Liberties Union. As Glenn Greenwald notes over at Salon, it, "...sputters with so much fact-free, impotent, and self-defeating rage that it's hard to believe it was printed."
The Standard cites the case of Moazzam Begg, who after his release from Guantanamo, they say, gave his name to a video game depicting Guantanamo prisoners blasting out of prison by killing mercenaries which the Standard reminds us are really U.S. soldiers. They also complain of an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) produced short film about Guantanamo prisons that includes Begg, and claims that the prisoners in the film are all unfairly detained.
According to the Standard, documents from the Bush Administration prove otherwise. As Glenn noted in his article,
"But what he dishonestly -- though understandably -- fails to note is that each of these individuals are available to appear in the ACLU video because they were released from Guantanamo by the Bush administration [Moazzam Begg (released 2005); Omar Deghayes (released 2007); Bisher al-Rawi (released 2007); Ruhal Ahmed (released 2004); Shafiq Rasul (released 2004)]. If, as Joscelyn claims, the ACLU are Al Qaeda's "useful idiots" for producing a video containing interviews with these individuals, what are Bush officials who released them onto the streets?"
Don't bother with the Weekly Standard, but Glenn is always worth the read.
If you are a regular reader, you know how much I love to write about Senator Sessions and the serial stupidity of the GOP. I believe that Mr. Sessions exemplifies that quality.
As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, today Sessions inserted both feet into his mouth when he responded to a discussion about Fort Hood, terrorism, and the upcoming trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad by saying:
"The enemy, who could of been obliterated on the battlefield on one day, but was captured instead does not then become a common American criminal. They are first a prisoner of war, once they're captured. The laws of war say, as did Lincoln and Grant, that the prisoners will not be released when the war - until the war ends. How absurb is it to say that we will release people who plan to attack us again?"
This is a really interesting comment. The "war on terror," according to the terms set forth by just about everyone, has no real ending. When do we say it is over? If prisoners then are prisoners of this war on terror, when can they expect to be released? They can't. That is exactly why Bush and company created the military tribunal system, Guantanamo Bay, and the designation "enemy combatant." The use of the term "prisoner of war" has very specific legal obligations to the country holding that individual. Why do you think that Bush and company were very, very careful to never, ever refer to any of the "enemy combatants" or other residents at Guantanamo Bay as "prisoners of war?" They and the mainstream media refer endlessly to the "war on terror." But they had to create a new lexicon to wage it. Enhanced interogation. Enemy combatant.
Senator Sessions just as the rest of the Republicans do, chooses which terminology fits the argument, or which argument fits the results he wants to reach.
General Petraeus, the man the right has proclaimed the best hope for resolving the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, the man that John McCain quoted extensively during his campaign, and the man that many Republicans are floating as a possible presidential candidate for 2012, was on Fox's Live Desk today. What he had to say will not please Dick Cheney. It isn't the first time he's come out against torture, but today he was a little firmer, and a little clearer.
General Petraus made it clear he supports President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo, agreeing that it "...has inflamed anti-US hostility." He added:
“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.
When asked about the disposition of the detainees currently being held at Guantanamo - a subject of much controversy and a massive NIMBY (not in my backyard) campaign, he said:
“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,” he added. “What we stand for and so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we’re doing on the battle field and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith I think in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.”
The interviewer asked him then if he was confident then that the detainees at Guantanamo would never go free, to which he replied:
"I certainly hope that's the case."
It was clear listening to General Petraeus that he is willing to take the risk, unlike the current and past administration, that like anyone else entering our judicial system, the detainees currently held at Guantanamo might be found not guilty and as a result, be required to be released.
Asked about the use of so-called enhanced interrogation during the previous administration, Petraeus said that, "...banning the more extreme techniques had taken away “a tool” employed by “our enemies” as a moral argument against the United States."
To continue the bad news for Dick Cheney, last night Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) spoke at the Foreign Policy Association. Senator Levin is Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee which recently released its 200-page bipartisan report of its 18-month investigation into Abu Ghraib. If you haven't yet read the report, it is very accessible, and damning.
In his speech last night, Levin responded specifically to Cheney's speech last week, stating that he had seen the memos Cheney had asked to be de-classified. The memos that would prove - according to Cheney - that what they did was right and necessary. The memos that would prove - according to Cheney - that what they did saved thousands of lives. Unfortunately (for Cheney), the memos show no such thing, says Senator Levin. In fact, Senator Levin said that Mr. Cheney lied.
Here's a clip from Countdown that shows clips from Senator Levin's speech.
Why can't we move Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S? The Republicans have mounted an amazing campaign claiming that we will not be safe if these terrorists currently incarcerated at Guantanamo are moved to U.S. prisons. Never mind that they would be moved to supermax prisons. Never mind that any prisoners actually released would be released to their home countries, not to the U.S. Never mind that none of this will happen anytime soon, but will happen after careful deliberation and due process (an admittedly foreign concept for Guantanamo detainees) to ensure that the most dangerous prisoners are appropriately handled.
The most recent reason why we can't have these terrorists in American prisons? Conservative pundits and blogs cite an incident that took place in 2000 involving a Muslim terrorist. This article about Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, in custody for the two embassy bombings in 1998, details his attack on a prison guard. On Nov. 1, 2000, while incarcerated in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in lower Manhattan, Salim's attack left the guard blinded and partially paralyzed. This example is used to explain how violent jihadists are because of their background. That because of the kind of training they receive, because they are on a holy mission, they are more dangerous, more brutal, and more willing to risk their own lives and thus, too dangerous for U.S. prisons.
This is one incident. More detainees at Guantanamo have been injured in custody than have their guards. In fact, we have an obligation beyond ending "enhanced interrogation" to remove these men fromGuantanamo. Everyday these men experience cruel and unusual punishment that exceeds stress positions and the other techniques listed in the OLC memos. The Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) teams at Guantanamo as detailed here are more brutal than one man with a homemade shiv could ever be.
The U.S. is more than capable of containing violent prisoners and doing it ethically and legally. Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan, and others are in custody. Bundy, Dahmer, and other serial killers too numerous to mention are either incarcerated or were executed and all were at least as dangerous as some of the men in Guantanamo. Many of the men in Guantanamo have actually done nothing wrong and were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because of the paranoia of Bush and Cheney, and the inability of the system they attempted to put in place to deal with errors, these men are still there.
Why are the Republicans so afraid of bringing these men into American prisons? Why has the Democratic leadership knuckled under and begun singing that song? We have the highest unemployment rate ever. Prisons are experiencing reductions in size, prisoners are being given early release because of over-crowding. Guards are being let go, prisons are reducing units, and some supermax prisons stand empty. Closing Guantanamo and bringing the detainees here would add jobs to the corrections system without creating any additional danger. In fact, by closing Guantanamo, a symbol of the abuse of prisoners, it would enhance our image in the world and enhance our image with potential al Qaeda recruits, thus reducing one factor leading to the reason young men join al Qaeda.
Republicans are delighted that Democrats denied Obama funding to shut down Guantanamo. They think they've somehow won something and that their campaign of NO has succeeded. Not. Senator Reid fumbled badly as he attempted to explain the reasoning behind keeping Guantanamo open, saying that no detainees would ever be moved to American prisons. The vote yesterday to deny funding was not about keeping prisoners out of U.S. prisons, but rather to demand participation in Obama's planning.
I think Harry needs to spend a little time talking to his caucus. The Senate Democrats have made it clear that they are unhappy with the Obama Administration's lack of communication with them about plans for Guantanamo and the detainees. Obama has made several policy shifts since taking office and this denial of funds is Congress's way of demanding accountability from him.
"The language reads, "None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act or any prior Act may be used to transfer, release or incarcerate any individual who was detained as of May 19, 2009 at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States."
According to Senator Inouye, last weeks amendment to place restrictions on the funding was not a strong enough message to the Administration as there was still no plan forthcoming. The strong, inflammatory objections making the rounds in the media were also a factor as he suggested that the prison must close or continue being a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, but,
"Inouye was emphatic that Democrats still believe the prison should close, and that his amendment is only a "reality check" on the administration's intent to close it without a plan for the detainees being held there... None of the options are good, but this is one resource we have," he said. "We need to keep it. We have to keep it. It is by far the best option."
In an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked about the prevailing (conservative) view of President Obama that he has been going around the world apologizing for (and thus weakening) America. For someone who was Defense Secretary under President Bush, this is an amazing statement.
"Well, I like to remind people that, when President George W. Bush came into office, he talked about a more humble America. And, you know, you go back to Theodore Roosevelt and his line about speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.
"I think that acknowledging that we have made mistakes is not only factually accurate, I think that it is unusual, because so few other governments in the world are willing to admit that, although they make them all the time. And some of them make catastrophic mistakes.
"And in speeches myself, I have said that at times we have acted too arrogantly. And I didn't feel that I was being apologetic for America, I just was saying, because the next -- I was just saying that that's the way we are in terms of being willing to recognize our own limitations, and when we make a mistake to correct it.
"Because I think the next line that I always use is, no other country in the world is so self-critical, and is so willing to change course when we feel that we've strayed from our values, or when we feel like we've been too arrogant.
"So, I think -- I have not seen it as an apology tour at all, but rather a change of tone, a more humble America. But everybody knows we still have the big stick."
The likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the cheerleaders for the "he's weakening America" meme of course will ignore anything that might weaken their argument. If Robert Gates had said during the Bush administration that Bush's aggressive tone was weakening America by alienating our allies, that Guantanamo was the #1 recruitment tool for Al Queda - what would the talking heads of Fox News said then?
I am a writer who uses my experience as a sociologist and counselor along with my lifelong passion for politics to comment on the effects of politics on our lives.
Posts
