Look, this is like arguing about death panels. You’re arguing about the latest manufactured nonsense from the right. Four people are going on trial in open court, at least one and possibly all of them will plead guilty according to their lawyers. There’s a cast-iron case against all four and let’s face it, it’s difficult to argue that any jury will be entirely impartial. There is zero chance of any of them being found innocent, if there was they’d be tried in a military court like the rest of the Guantanamo people.
We could debate whether this new opaqueness is a learned response due to all kinds of crazy fear-mongering that has arisen from the right, nearly completely divorced from real issues, to many of his proposals. Transparency that turns out to be telegraphing your moves to an implacable opponent is not always a good thing.
I think Obama was somewhat naive to the obscene level of partisanship in Washington, and holding his cards closer to his chest is one response to that. Probably good in some cases and bad in others.
If they plead guilty, there is no trial, and the evidence will never be put to the test. There will be no jury to decide anything.
The question is whether the Obama administration should publicly commit to following the rule of law, which related to this exchange with reporters, means a commitment to release those who are found innocent of criminal charges.
I believe they have made numerous statements about respecting the rule of law, though not specifically in regards to this question. I think it is reasonable to infer that their many other statements in support of the rule of law apply to this case as well.
Sorry, missed this post the first time around. In my example of the groups of detainees above, I think it is reasonable to assume that group #2 would have provided some useful information about group #1 during the course of their military detention, even absent waterboarding and the like.
I also think it is even more reasonable to question whether it is reasonable to continue the assumption that someone may belong to group #1 if there is an absence of evidence that they are, in fact, terribly dangerous men. Surely there was some intelligence or other information that led to the capture of these most dangerous people, right?
It isn’t as if we just picked random people off the street of Waziristan and tortured them until they admitted they were hardcore Al Qaeda members, and if we had not interrogated them, we would have had no idea how dangerous they were…
Oh, wait, we probably did that to some degree. But those people picked up on little to no evidence are most likely in group number 4.
I agree.
It’s unfortunate that as a candidate, Obama was free to criticize the administration’s decision to hold cards close, won the right to become the administration, and now has adopted (in some measure) the very tactics he complained of.
And of course that’s not unique to Obama. The Republican challenger in 2012 will undoubtedly do something similar.
Actually the ACLU called last night. They want my membership card back. Apparently there’s going to be a hearing… but they refused to speculate what would happen if I were acquitted of being a secret conservative. Nobody wants to conjecture whether the theoretical possibility of being found not guilty is an important civil liberty or not.
I think the issue of transparency is a red herring. We all know damn well why the Administration hasn’t commented on the acquittal of KSM, but criticizing this as a lack of transparency falls short of the mark.
Yes, Obama promised the “most transparent Administration ever,” but (a) I think in some respects (e.g., posting bills on the White House website for 5 days) it was a stupid promise and (b) “most transparent” doesn’t mean “total transparency.”
Bush did establish the military tribunals to establish the distinction, though. And although they were later found to be unconstitutional, it wasn’t because they were incompetent.
Well, there is an opportunity to review how Obama would handle the situation. Take a look at what his policy is in the Bagram internment facility in Afganistan.
First here, then here, and then this, and finally this. Obama’s solution is the same military review process that was declared unconstitutional in Gitmo.
I was thinking about taking him in as a free man, but you’re right that there are other countries who might want to prosecute him.
OTOH, I doubt that our political system would allow these high level detainees to be handed over to another country. Even if it were the right thing to do, it would be politically very difficult to do so.
It was asked upthread, but not answered. If he is acquitted couldn’t the State of New York conduct 2,900 separate trials for murder? Or Virginia conduct one hundred plus. He would get a quick needle there. Or Pennsylvania about 60 such trials?
Does any rule of law require that since it was a single act that New York would have to hold one trial for 2,900 counts of murder, or could they do it one at a time until they get a conviction.
A lot of our detainees were picked up because we offered a reward . Their neighbors just had to say they were terrorists and we would take them. We have seen many times how innocent people in America will wither and admit crimes they did not commit. Given enough time, almost everybody would cave and admit to being a terrorist. That does not make it true.
I assume by “incompetent” you mean they didn’t know what they were doing, which was obvious by the court rulings against the combatant status review panels as well as the statements by those who used to work with the panels. But by “competent,” I mean the standard set forth by the Geneva Convention.
I find many times that the criticism that Obama is the same as Bush is based on a superficial reading of news articles.
So, it isn’t the same policy.
But for many of those leveling the accusation, it’s a no-win situation. Keep Bagram open? OMG, same as Bush! Close Guantanamo? OMG, he’s an amateur!
Bush kept the guy for years without a trial, Obama is trying him. The fascist right is objecting to him being tried. Impliedly on the grounds that he might be acquitted. You’ve still got a hypothetical.
You keep insisting that what Obama does is the equivalent of what Bush did. It is not. The Bush Administration ordered wholesale torture and no trials etc. When you can offer proof that the Obama administration is continuing those practices (torture and no trials) come back and we can discuss why Obama isn’t moving away from the Bush practices.
What you have in the meantime looks very petulant, saying that what Obama is doing is the same as what Bush did.
See my prior cites regarding Bagram.
Why isn’t the answer to this question ‘Yes’.
Yes, and please pay close attention to what the articles actually say.
As well as my comment:
The fact is Obama’s policies are different. Not in a knee-jerk, do the opposite of everything Bush did sort of way. The policies are different in substance and application.
Apparently you didn’t read the articles. Did Obama try to deny habeas to all detainees in Bagram? Yes, he did. Is he appealing the ruling against that? Yes, he is.
Obama also works in the Oval Office. OMG! He’s like George Bush!
Let me ask you directly: are you saying that Bush’s habeas policies are good, or are they bad? In other words, are you trying to resurrect some speck of respectability in an otherwise failed Bush presidency, or are you trying to criticize Obama for any reason you can find?
There are similarities and differences between Obama’s and Bush’s policies on ANYTHING, just like there were similarities and differences between Bush’s and Clinton’s policies. Since you don’t seem to want to debate the specifics of whether such policies are justified, I think it is sufficient to say that the presence of some similarities in policies does not mean that other aspects of policy are greatly different.
For example, closing Guantanamo and putting terrorists on trial. You seem to gloss over those major differences.
Neither. I don’t think I’ve commented one way or another if they are good or bad. I’ve simply provided evidence that they are very much the same as Obama’s. My criticism is for Obama supporters that take high road moral approach to Bush’s policies, declaring them immoral, then suddenly retreating to a nuanced ‘Oh, but it’s really, really complicated!!!’ position when Obama does the same.
Oh, has Guantanamo been closed? I must have missed that memo. And Bush announced it would be closed too, you know. 
And regarding putting a terrorist on trial, how do you square that with denying habeas corpus in Bagram? His hand was forced in Guantanamo by the Supreme Court. What did he do when he was free to pursue his own policy?
That’s very convenient. Talk about debating with one’s tail so far between their legs that they cannot take a position on an issue that they’re criticizing someone else for.
To be honest, I’m not sure because I’m not clear on the specifics of the controversy in the courts. Note that I haven’t criticized either Bush or Obama for their stance.
In general, however, I believe that some sort of competent tribunal should make a determination on whether a particular person should/can be lawfully detained, which is what the Geneva Conventions require. I don’t know whether Federal court is the only venue where that can happen, or even the appropriate venue, unless I read more about the facts of the case.