From the New York Times:
Well, excellent. I give the Obama administration top marks for symbolism.
But in terms of actual… you know… stuff, it seems to me not so hugely different than Bush’s approach.
Now, I didn’t have a huge problem with Bush’s rationale, and I don’t have a problem with Obama continuing it. I do have a problem with Obama’s election tactic of appearing to promise he wouldn’t adopt these tactics and then doing so.
But perhaps I’m missing something that makes it all better.
I don’t see what you find so confusing. The old policy was that of George W. Bush. The new one is the brainchild of Barack H. Obama. Seems pretty clear to me. The old policy was the brain spawn of the devil, the new one the measured solution to a complex problem reached over many days and nights of debate and reflection by an enlightened mind. Did you skip your coffee this morning or something?
We’ll have to see how this plays out. Bush had several years to develop and apply his approach - I’d personally give Obama more than 2 months and 1 newspaper article to try to clear it up.
As a big O supporter I was not thrilled by this early report. But I’m willing to wait at least a while to see how it plays out. It is possible that even retaining a near identical policy, he might implement it considerably differently.
Of course, as much as I support and appreciate the guy, I have no doubt but that there will be a number of issues on which I disagree with him.
Um…
What?!?
You’re not seriously suggesting that he walked into the Oval Office on January 21st and said, “What the heck? Prisoners in Guantanamo? Why wasn’t I told? What are we going to do about this??”
The issue of Gitmo loomed large during the election. Candidiate Obama forcefully indicated he disagreed with President Bush’s policy, and promised change.
Now he’s President Obama, and you can’t credibly claim he’s had only two months to figure out what he wants to do. Even if he doesn’t have all the details in place, he can disclaim the basic authority that Bush claimed to hold detainees without criminal charges.
Of course I’m not and you know it. Thank you for reminding me why I generally choose not to engage you.
IMO Bush’s administration pursued policies that consistently and undesireably constrained liberties of both US citizens and foreign nationals. My understanding is that the 250 or so inmates at Guantanamo have been held as long as 7 years. That it took 7 years of continued effort for Bush to fuck up this particular situation as badly as he did, it doesn’t offend me that it is taking his successor more than 2 months to correct it.
My understanding is that Obama has expressed an intention to close Guantanamo, transfer some of the prisoners elsewhere, and decide how to try them, and is pursuing those goals, albeit incrementally. Impresses me as a thoughtful and responsible process directed in a desireable direction. You - being who you are - obviously see it differently.
That is very disappointing.
Again – I’m not disputing that it will take longer than two months to resolve the issue. I’d appreciate your responding to this specific point, though: ANY start that’s consistent with Obama’s representations as a candidate would need to begin by repudiating the “We have the right to hold detainees indefinitely, without charges.”
I apologize for the snarky rejoinder in the prior post, but it was intended to highlight exactly this difference between what I’m asking and what you’re responding to. You seem to think I’m slamming the man for not having a complete solution in place, and I’m not. I am slamming him for not taking the obvious, immediate, and clearly necessary first step at a critical juncture to do so if he really intended to make any substantial changes to the previous policy.
Please, if I’m missing how this will work, please educate me.
I think he’s simply running into the myriad layers of military beauracracy, with the inevitable gauntlets of classified meetings and intel briefings, that continues to swirl around this issue. He can’t act on how he thinks he probably should or would have without getting all the “facts on the ground” that he wasn’t privy to as a Senator, but he doesn’t want to appear to simply be ignoring the problem. Hence, the reclassification, which does send a big symbolic message, though it’s too early/premature to make any substantial policy change. Yet.
I have full confidence that he will, but that things simply run much slower than he anticipated (plus, to be perfectly frank, his dancecard has been quite full recently). If this is the last we hear of this case, then it will indeed be devesatatingly disappointing. But I don’t believe it will. He can’t and won’t come up with a solution until all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. Due diligence is a bitch, but I’m optimistic he’ll improve matters, even if it’s not quite as soon as some of us (including the detainees themselves) would like.
More than that. He’s already issued the order to have the process complete within 1 year. I’d rather it be immediate, sure, but the clock is ticking.
Does this legal position reflect an actual intent to keep people locked in an oubliette, with no recourse and no outside review, as Bush’s policy was? Or is it just a way to keep Obama from having to proceed precipitously under court order? That really would be a little worrying, but to contend or even imply that there is no substantive change whatever is quite disingenuous.
The one excuse that I can think of, is that a a lot of the most important details aren’t available until he’s actual President. He had those big debriefings with President Bush, which may well have triggered a few light bulb moments. They may very well have changed his mind about the whole deal. It’s always easy to sit back and criticize someone else’s policy when you don’t know all the really gritty, crappy details. Same thing happened with the Iraw war withdrawal.
Obama also did the same thing similar earlier, when he stopped the current trials. He may proceed with criminal trials instead of the military commissions, but I doubt it.
The whole Gitmo things is just a legal quagmire. I don’t think there is a ‘good’ way to deal with it. No doubt, Bush pursued the path that he felt was best. It may very well be the best path available. Obama is now in the position that he may have to agree with some of Bush’s policies, but can’t publicly do so, or risk alienating his base. So he makes trivial changes, hoping his support base buys it.
Tell me, after Gitmo is closed (supposedly) where does he plan to house these “non enemy combatants”? He must have that completely worked out before deciding to close it, no?
Yes, you are. Everything is different now. Earmarks are different. Signing statements are different. Hiring lobbyists is different. The effects of big-government spending is different. The effects of the deficit is different. The attitude of other countries towards the US is different.
Everything. All different.
Any questions?
Regards,
Shodan
I think that’s exactly right.
One possible reason is that he can’t repudiate until he closes Gitmo first. If he did, then (I suppose) the detainees would have to be released immediately. Hopefully Obama will repudiate once Gitmo is closed. (Unfortunately, I don’t expect the repudiation to happen.)
But that isn’t true. He can agree that he doesn’t have the power to hold them indefinitely and still not have to release them immediately.
This BBC article does not square with the Times:
Perhaps the Obama Administration has definition of ‘terrorist suspect’ that is radically different from that invented by the Bush Administration, one that won’t result in people being sold to the US for the bounty then tortured. Maybe they’ll be held, but treated as POW’s as they should be instead of being disappeared a la Bush.
In any case, you can’t both act according to the “international laws of war” and hang on to Bush policy regarding the kidnap and torture of citizens of other nations. One of these articles isn’t painting an accurate picture.
The difference is, Obama is claiming the authority to declare who is/isn’t an enemy combatant is up to congress. Rather than Bush’s position that he could define it as he saw fit. It was mentioned in the first news report I heard on the subject.
Really, the difference I see is, it is far less likely now to be applied willy-nilly or on American citizens. It’s progress, I suppose.
I’ll register my severe disappointment. The whole point of the “enemy combatant” kerfuffle isn’t that they shouldn’t be included in that category, but that they should be included in a category that involves actually being tried for a crime at a point sooner than “whenever we so feel like it”.
I’m willing to give him some more time, but this seems more like window dressing and semantics than a substantive shift in policy. Our treatment of prisoners in the War on Terror - methods of seizure, rendition, torture, deprivation of rights, length of imprisonment - was one of the most illegal, dramatic and ultimately self-defeating policies of the Bush Administration. President Obama has got to chart a new course.
FWIW, Obama has already ended extraordinary rendition, “black sites”, and torture (oh, okay, “methods not included in the Army manual”, officially).
Yep, same as Bush.