Obama Mounts Defense of Detainee Plan

[Gordon Brown]

 

Obama Mounts Defense of Detainee Plan

The New York Times

Also for read:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/200...cas-enemies/?hp

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05...rity-speech/?hp

 

WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered an impassioned defense of his administration’s anti-terrorism policies on Thursday, reiterating his determination to close the prison at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba in the face of growing Congressional pressure and declaring that America will remain strong if it stands by its basic precepts.

 

The president said that what has gone on at Guantánamo for the past seven years has demonstrated an unjust, haphazard “ad hoc approach” that has undermined rather than strengthened America’s safety, and that moving its most dangerous inmates to the United States is both practical and in keeping with the country’s cherished ideals.

 

Moreover, he said that transferring some Guantánamo detainees to highly secure prisons in the United States would in no way endanger American security.

 

Speaking at the National Archives, which houses the Constitution and other documents embodying America’s system of government and justice, the president promised to work with Congress to develop a safe and fair system for dealing with a particularly thorny problem: what to do with those Guantánamo detainees who, for one reason or another, cannot be prosecuted in civilian or military courts “yet who pose a clear danger to the American people” and therefore cannot simply be released.

 

“I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face,” the president said, pledging to help devise “clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category,” meaning former Taliban commanders, Al Qaeda-trained explosives experts, acolytes of Osama bin Laden and others whose hatred of America is deep and uncompromising.

 

Imprisoning people indefinitely without charging them is generally contrary to principles of American justice, a reality that the American Civil Liberties Union alluded to after the president’s speech.

 

“We welcome President Obama’s stated commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law and the unequivocal rejection of torture,” said Anthony Romero, the A.C.L.U.’s executive director. “But unlike the president, we believe that continuing with the failed military commissions and creating a new system of indefinite detention without charge is inconsistent with the values that he expressed so eloquently at the National Archives today.”

 

President Obama said that, despite the evil intentions of some Guantánamo detainees and the undeniable fact that Al Qaeda terrorists are determined to attack America again, United States citizens should not feel uneasy about a relatively small number of detainees being imprisoned in the American homeland. “As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists,” the president said. “As Senator Lindsey Graham said: ‘The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.’”

 

The problem of what to do with the Guantánamo detainees “was not caused by my decision to close the facility,” Mr. Obama said. “The problem exists because of the decision to open Guantánamo in the first place.”He said that “faced with an uncertain threat” and “a sincere desire to protect the American people,” the government — aided by Democrats and Republicans, politicians journalists and citizens — “went off course.”

 

Only minutes after Mr. Obama finished speaking, former Vice President Dick Cheney offered a far different perspective, defending the anti-terrorism policies of the Bush administration, asserting that the country had never lost “its moral bearings” and criticizing some of President Obama’s approaches. Taken together, the speeches of President Obama and the former vice president outlined a fundamental debate over the proper balance between personal liberties and national security in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks.

 

Both speeches came in a week in which Congress has been wrestling with detention issues. The Senate by a lopsided vote of 90-6 rebuffed the president over financing for closing down the detention center. Republicans and Democrats alike argued that the White House had yet to outline a realistic plan for what to do with the remaining detainees after the center is closed.

 

The supermax prisons to which Mr. Obama alluded, familiar to viewers of cable-television crime programs, are fortress-like structures of concrete and steel where the inmates — the worst of the worst of hardened criminals — live in near-isolation.

 

“I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges,” Mr. Obama said. “Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees — not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man.”

 

The president said Americans should resist the temptation to indulge in “finger-pointing” over mistakes. But he offered scathing criticism of the presidency of George W. Bush, referring repeatedly to the missteps, in Mr. Obama’s view, of “the past eight years” and declaring that the harsh interrogation methods used at Guantanamo have fomented terrorism.

 

In an address punctuated several times by applause, the president asserted over and over that fidelity to American values is not a luxury to be dispensed with in times of crisis but, rather, the compass that will steer the country to safety in an age of terrorism.

 

“We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe,” he said.

 

The president has said he wants the Guantánamo detention camp closed by January 2010, but he did not mention any timetable in his speech on Thursday. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, said the president should avoid an “arbitrary timeline,” but the senator was critical of the overall speech.

 

“With all due respect to the president, what we need here is not a speech but a plan,” Mr. McConnell said. “And a plan is what was clearly missing from the speech today.”

 

Another Republican senator, John Cornyn of Texas, was harsher in his criticism, accusing the president of “downgrading the global war on terror to a law enforcement action” and of complaining incessantly of problems that he supposedly inherited.

 

Initial Democratic reaction was far more supportive. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he agreed with the president that fidelity to the nation’s core values makes the country strong as well as just. “I believed that when I was a prosecutor,” said Mr. Leahy, one of the six senators who sided with the president on the vote to close Guantanamo. “I believe that even more today as a United States senator.”

 

Another Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, said the speeches of President Obama and Mr. Cheney “offered a stark and revealing contrast.”

 

The president wants to protect the country and its values, while the former vice president offered “the same misleading scare tactics” that were repudiated in the November elections, said Mr. Feingold, who voted to withhold money for closing Guantanamo.

 

Shortly after President Obama finished his speech, television networks cut away to Mr. Cheney’s speech, titled “Keeping America Safe,” delivered to the American Enterprise Institute.

 

Mr. Cheney gave the president some credit for “wise decisions,” notably in some of the steps he has taken in Afghanistan and in reversing his plan to release photographs of detainee abuse. But the former vice president was vigorous in his defense of the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees that the Obama administration has denounced, saying that skilled and trained C.I.A. agents had gained invaluable intelligence, using methods ruled legal by administration lawyers, that had saved lives.

 

Mr. Cheney was sharply critical of Mr. Obama’s decision to release documents detailing the Bush administration debate on what interrogation techniques could legally be employed. Releasing the memos, Mr. Cheney said, “was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States,” undercutting anti-terror efforts by United States allies around the world, and leaving C.I.A. agents unsure of high-level backing “when the going gets tough.”

 

Mr. Cheney suggested that the new administration was making a deeply flawed and risky calculation that the Sept. 11 attacks were in effect one-time event and not a persistent, existential threat. Mr. Cheney also offered a withering critique of the suggestion that the Obama team was seeking middle ground in policies on terrorism.

 

“In the fight against terrorism,” he said, “there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half-exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist ouf of the United States.”

 

In addition, Mr. Cheney, a fierce opponent of releasing information about the government’s wiretapping efforts, criticized The New York Times for its coverage of the practice, which he said “let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States.” “It impressed the Pulitzer committee,” he said, “but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.”

 

As for the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, Mr. Cheney suggested that Mr. Obama was short-sightedly playing to foreign audiences. “It’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantánamo,” he said. “But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security.”

Edited May 21, 2009 by Gordon Brown

[voteneg]

The way the headline is phrased it makes it sound like he is creating a detainee defense plan, like he's defending the detainees. Rather he's defending his plan for the detainees. the phrasing is all goofy. I expect better of the NYT.

 

It's about time.

 

A humans a human, doesn't matter how wicked they are, so long as they're in supermax they're not gonna be a problem.

[Jonny_Tightlips]

The level of stupidity that our Senate and House have reached has astounded me. These detainees, of which only 3 have been fully convicted as Terrorists in American courts, are being denied from every country that the US Government has tried to throw them at. We detained them into our Guantanamo Bay, therefore it's the US's responsibility to keep them, that is, if they want a "safer world."

 

On wednesday, the senate and house both passed a bill stating that none of the detainees are allowed to be put into US Supermax Prisons, due to it being unsafe for the American people. Thanks guys, I was really worried about terrorists escaping from some of the most impossible places to escape from in probably the entire world. Not only has no one ever escaped from one of the Supermax prisons, but no one has seriously tried. The amount of fear-mongering among our elected officials is getting tiring since people actually believe this bullsh*t. I mean really, who honestly thinks ANYONE could try and assault a supermax prison in the US, to try and rescue a terrorist? I mean, i can understand a martyr mission like 9/11 with people killing themselves for a cause, but you actually believe that they'd escape the country alive?

[Dingdongs]

Let's see, Dick Cheney, 3 words to describe him.. War Criminal, Disgusting Piece of Filth, and somehow related to my grandfather ( seriously ).

 

Dick Cheneys speech just outlined all of what he's been saying this entire time, propaganda, and more propaganda.

 

Honestly, what's wrong with bringing detainees to the mainland? I would have NO problem with them in a federal maximum security prison near me.. they are locked up, and not going anywhere. There are tons of terrorists already locked up in federal prisons here, I really don't see the need to argue with what he wants to do.

[jelly]

I expect better of the NYT.

 

Given that their mouths are collectively fixed to the man's anus I don't expect anything less.

 

Oh well, got enough Hope and Change yet?

[Mike Tequeli]

Seems like Obama has pretty much pulled an about face on every bit of "change" except emptying Guantanamo Bay (I at least expected don't ask don't tell to go away, it's not even politically popular), which congress promptly shut down. Seems like not much different is happening now.

[voteneg]

 

I expect better of the NYT.

 

Given that their mouths are collectively fixed to the man's anus I don't expect anything less.

 

Oh well, got enough Hope and Change yet?

Actually I'm liking where things are heading.

 

So far he's done a fairly respectable job at doing what he can to keep his campaign promises. Politicfact has a nice breakdown of where he's gone back on what he's promised, and where he's come through. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ I suspect that on some of the issues where campaign promises have been broken we might see him revisiting the topic again in the future when the political climate may be more agreeable. And if you look at some of the instances, where a promise was broken, the underlying cause is that congress wouldn't come through on the issue.

 

@Mike Tequelli: See the politifact link above. For the most part i'd agree with their assessment.

 

For how early it is, I'm certainly very satisfied.

 

Perhaps things aren't happening at a brisk of a pace as some would like, I'm pretty patient though. I'd expect Obama to tow a pretty safe line through the 2010 elections, perhaps even through his first term. Seriously people, it's been five months, five months out of a bare minimum of 4 years (likely eight.)

 

 

But this topic is about detainees, lets keep it to that. As far as I'm concerned closing gitmo is a good thing.

Edited May 22, 2009 by voteneg