The tricky thing with Al Qaeda is that it isn’t an organization, it’s a label. Most “members” of Al Qaeda are folks who just decided on their own that they’re going to fight the Great Satan and started calling themselves part of AQ without any contact whatsoever from anyone already calling themselves that. Even if we somehow magically arrested or killed everyone currently identifying as members of AQ, more would still crop up tomorrow. The only way AQ will ever go away entirely is if we collectively decide on some other label we’re even more afraid of.
Because then those dangerous terrorist criminals will have to actually be housed within the borders of the USA, where we just don’ t have things like maximum security prisons that are designed and built to keep dangerous criminals inside.
Over the last two years, Congress has inserted provisions in budget bills that generally prohibit (I exaggerate a little) the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo to any prison in the United States. The reasons why members of Congress have taken this position range from “Guantanamo is a good thing” to “I don’t want Al Qaeda members imprisoned in my state.”
It isn’t quite clear at this point how the White House could appease or mitigate these concerns.
Admittedly without reading the entire thread, I stand by what I’ve said in the past: the people being held in Guatanamo and other prisons like it should either be tried or released. Indefinite detention without a trial is wrong.
The only concession I’ll make to the Obama administration is how much they’re able to act on this. The article says that legislators are “opposing” these trials. Is the oppostion just talk or is it legislative actions? If it’s just verbal opposition, Obama should override it and go ahead with the trials. But if legislators have passed actual laws that prevent these trials, then Obama should comply with the laws and shame on the legislators for what they did.
Obama had a House majority and a Senate filibuster-proof majority of Democrats.
These were greater majorities than Bush had.
Yet I can’t help hearing an unstated echo in your post that puts the blame on faceless “legislators” instead of the President, and contrast this view with the blame heaped on Bush while he was President.
The issue of releasing or transferring GTMO prisoners to prisons in the US was never an issue during the Bush Administration, because of the President’s views on the subject. Congress had no reason to legislate to prohibit something that was never a realistic option.
Once Obama took office, it became clear that there was a difference in the collective opinion of the legislative branch as opposed to the Obama White House. Of course there’s going to be controversy on the matter, and it isn’t a partisan issue. It is, to a great extent, an old-fashioned NIMBY issue, somewhat like Yucca Mountain, whether or not those fears are well-founded or not.
As I’ve said before, Congress has prohibited the release of detainees within the US, and put (somewhat nonsensical) restrictions on transferring detainees to US prisons. Those are realities that Bush didn’t have to deal with. One could make a reasonable argument that those restrictions are now in place because of the way Obama initially handled the executive order ordering the closure of GTMO, but that discussion does nothing to change the current state of affairs.
I think you’re finding that unstated echo because you’re looking for it.
Obama didn’t personally have a majority in Congress; the Democrats did. The President can’t dictate to Congress even if he’s of the same party.
Personally I suspect that Obama backed down in the face of verbal opposition from Congressional Democrats. In which case shame on them for protesting and shame on him for listening.
But Ravenman’s post, which was above mine, indicates that legislators may have done more than talk. They may have enacted laws prohibiting the transfer of prisoners into New York. And the article you cited named Senator Schumer and Congressman King (along with incoming Governor Cuomo) as opponents of trying Mohammed in New York. If that’s the case Obama should comply with the law but he should also be putting pressure on legislators to overturn these legal obstacles.
So I’ll certainly say that the blame here lies with Democrats. I’m just not sure how much of that blame belongs to the Democrat in the White House and how much belongs to the Democrats in Congress (and in Albany).
When the incoming Cingress talks about repealing Obamacare, the confident retory is that they can’t, because Obama has a veto.
So when were these laws passed?
Bush made no effort and expressed no interest in or desire to give KSM a trial. Obama did. Congress refused to fund it. It’s not relevant that Democrats were in the majority. They are not his employees. If Bush had wanted to give KSM a trial, and his own party in Congress thwarted him, I would have blamed Congress, not Bush. You are not making a valid comparison of circumstances since the relevant factors are the expressed will of the respective Presidents, not the always reliable spinlessness of any given Congress.
I think the law vis a vis letting the prisoners into New York was proposed as a New York state law.
Wouldn’t federal law preempt state law on matters such as this?
The US Senate voted 90-6 to block the transfer.
I guess Obama could have vetoed that. Although the House did authorize those transfers by a sizable majority, Congress probably couldn’t have overturned the veto.
Just to be clear, I’m not sure this constituted one particular bill that both houses voted on, but the sentiment in the House was quite different from that in the Senate.
Ah, the call of the false dilemma bird. Often seen around terrorism-related discussions.
Khalid Mohammed may be a world class asshole. Civilized countries do not indefinitely imprison people without charge or trial, even if they’re world class assholes. If the guy committed crimes, put him on trial. If there’s no evidence that will convict him, then why would you think he committed crimes?
A properly civilized country with decent laws is not supposed to put people in concentration camps without charge.
Bricker, I think you’re the one being naive. You think legislative politics cannot have played a role because Democrats controlled Congress until Scott Brown’s election? That’s silly. Politics is more than party label. Just because they have Joe Lieberman in their caucus doesn’t mean Obama’s will is law. And more importantly, even the liberal Democrats have generally been unwilling spend political capital in order to help some non-voting accused terrorists. Of course Congress is to blame, both Democrats and Republicans – with Republicans (with some exceptions in both sides of the aisle) getting the larger share of blame for shamelessly demagoguing the issue.
If Obama thought Congress would go along with shutting down Gitmo, he was also being naive. That doesn’t make Obama evil (nor, incidentally, does the policy make Bush evil; just wrong on an important and difficult question).
Or as Lindsey Graham put it:
I think that’s about right. Republican demagoguery makes it politically toxic. So Democrats in Congress don’t touch it, because they gain nothing politically by doing so. Who do you blame for that? Both, of course, but principally the GOP.
What is also frequently seen is a refusal to recognize the danger of someone who has not yet been convicted of a crime – as long as they are accused of being a terrorist. For some reason, there are many people who somehow don’t seem to acknowledge that the guy who joyfully claims to have cut off Daniel Pearl’s head with his own hands might actually do something dangerous if released, not to mention the fact that the government has passed a law (with only one dissenting vote, if memory serves) that made Al Qaeda the focus of a war, not just a police investigation. Your reference to him as “an asshole” seems to make him out to be a guy who gets drunk at a bar and calls one’s girlfriend nasty names, not someone who advocates (and has carried out) cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians.
The US could have chosen to pursue the whole 9/11 as purely a criminal matter. But that was not done. Laws are on the books that say that our military is able to shoot those fuckers on sight, which generally police do not do; and that law has logical consequences that exceed the traditional bounds of law enforcement. One natural consequence is that the government can detain combatants outside of the criminal justice system, which is generally accepted under international law to mean during the duration of hostilities.
Does this mean I support permanent detention of Al Qaeda members, outside of the legal system? No, no, a thousand times no.
Those sons of bitches ought to answer in our legal system for what they have done. The American people have a right to have justice done to them, and to make them answer for their crimes. But this is a really complex matter that must be dealt with by a combination of military and law enforcement means. I don’t think we’ve hit the right balance of which department (armed forces or police) is ultimately responsible for what aspects of our strategy against Al Qaeda.
It strikes me as very naive to think that we can expect a bad guy to go from battlefield to courtroom in a flash. The soldiers who may have captured him are not police, and they cannot reasonably be held to the same evidentiary standards as a police officer while they are on the battlefield. There’s a problem there, and I’m not sure how it can be fixed.
KSM ought to – and has to – answer for his crimes. But I’m not quite sure how all the legal issues get worked through to bring him to court. In the mean time, he is most certainly a combatant, and I see no reason to relieve the armed forces of their responsibility to keep a dangerous man off the battlefield until it is time for him to appear in a Federal court.
The first restriction was passed in the war appropriations bill in July 2009, and a modified restriction was passed in December 2009. The latter can be found in PL 111-118, section 9011.
Because all too often such accusations are outright lies. When we want to imprison, torture or kill innocent people we label them “terrorists”.
And I’ve already said - twice - that I think Obama is wrong and he hasn’t done enough on this issue. What exactly do you want to hear?
Bring charges or release him. To do otherwise is, AFAIK, unconstitutional. If we are truly a nation of laws, then fucking follow the laws. Preferably, follow them the same for everyone.