thedrifter
11-04-08, 06:59 AM
NOVEMBER 4, 2008
Guantanamo Revelation
According to the six-year narrative of the press and political class, the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies fall somewhere between the Spanish Inquisition and the Ministry of Love in "1984." So it was something of a shock to read a remarkable front-page story in the New York Times yesterday, the abridged version being: Never mind.
In their 1,600-word dispatch "Next President Will Face Test on Detainees," reporters William Glaberson and Margot Williams discover that, gee whiz, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay really are dangerous terrorists. The Times reviewed "thousands of pages" of evidence that the government has so far made public and concludes that perhaps the reality is more complicated than the critics claim.
Lo and behold, detainees are implicated in such terror attacks as the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Those with "serious terrorism credentials" include al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and the so-called "Dirty 30," Osama bin Laden's cadre of bodyguards. The Times didn't mention Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, though he's awaiting a war-crimes tribunal at Gitmo too.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain have pledged to put Guantanamo out of business, but, as the Times explains, "the review of the government's public files underscores the challenges of fulfilling that promise. The next president will have to contend with sobering intelligence claims against many of the remaining detainees." Now they tell us.
For example, at least 60 detainees have been cleared for release or transfer but no other countries will accept them. If Gitmo is no longer a prison, some U.S. facility would have to house the remaining men while they await habeas hearings and trials. Yet no politician has offered up his state or district as an alternative -- and none will. Further: If military commissions are cashiered altogether, how will prosecutors protect classified information and intelligence sources and methods in open civilian criminal court?
We guess it's easier for Mr. Bush's many opponents to admit all of this now that he's about to leave office. Perhaps the painstaking work of the Administration and Congress to establish a legal architecture for handling enemy combatants and to balance competing wartime priorities will look better when the political temperature is lower. After a few harrowing threat briefings, maybe the new Commander in Chief won't rush to undo Mr. Bush's programs.
But give the Times credit for leading the revisionist pack. More such media revelations on the Road to Damascus -- or Baghdad, Tehran and Khartoum -- are no doubt on the way, especially if Mr. Obama is elected today. This might even be healthy. Democrats would have to pivot from making easy cracks about Dick Cheney's "shadow" Constitution to accepting political responsibility for U.S. security.
Perhaps contentious antiterror tools would even acquire legitimacy in an Obama Administration, just as Eisenhower endorsed Truman's Cold War framework. Mr. Obama has already climbed down on warrantless wiretapping, first claiming that surveillance of terrorist communications routed through the U.S. violated civil liberties but then voting for Mr. Bush's policy in June. A safe bet is that the Swift and other Treasury programs to monitor and freeze terror finances, which the Times pointlessly disclosed in 2006, are also due for reconsideration.
As we learned under FDR (internment camps), LBJ (spying on political enemies) and Bill Clinton (rendition to Arab regimes), liberals aren't as punctilious about civil liberties when liberals run the government. Who knows, maybe Guantanamo's false reputation as a gulag will be rehabilitated too.
Ellie
Guantanamo Revelation
According to the six-year narrative of the press and political class, the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies fall somewhere between the Spanish Inquisition and the Ministry of Love in "1984." So it was something of a shock to read a remarkable front-page story in the New York Times yesterday, the abridged version being: Never mind.
In their 1,600-word dispatch "Next President Will Face Test on Detainees," reporters William Glaberson and Margot Williams discover that, gee whiz, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay really are dangerous terrorists. The Times reviewed "thousands of pages" of evidence that the government has so far made public and concludes that perhaps the reality is more complicated than the critics claim.
Lo and behold, detainees are implicated in such terror attacks as the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Those with "serious terrorism credentials" include al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and the so-called "Dirty 30," Osama bin Laden's cadre of bodyguards. The Times didn't mention Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, though he's awaiting a war-crimes tribunal at Gitmo too.
Both Barack Obama and John McCain have pledged to put Guantanamo out of business, but, as the Times explains, "the review of the government's public files underscores the challenges of fulfilling that promise. The next president will have to contend with sobering intelligence claims against many of the remaining detainees." Now they tell us.
For example, at least 60 detainees have been cleared for release or transfer but no other countries will accept them. If Gitmo is no longer a prison, some U.S. facility would have to house the remaining men while they await habeas hearings and trials. Yet no politician has offered up his state or district as an alternative -- and none will. Further: If military commissions are cashiered altogether, how will prosecutors protect classified information and intelligence sources and methods in open civilian criminal court?
We guess it's easier for Mr. Bush's many opponents to admit all of this now that he's about to leave office. Perhaps the painstaking work of the Administration and Congress to establish a legal architecture for handling enemy combatants and to balance competing wartime priorities will look better when the political temperature is lower. After a few harrowing threat briefings, maybe the new Commander in Chief won't rush to undo Mr. Bush's programs.
But give the Times credit for leading the revisionist pack. More such media revelations on the Road to Damascus -- or Baghdad, Tehran and Khartoum -- are no doubt on the way, especially if Mr. Obama is elected today. This might even be healthy. Democrats would have to pivot from making easy cracks about Dick Cheney's "shadow" Constitution to accepting political responsibility for U.S. security.
Perhaps contentious antiterror tools would even acquire legitimacy in an Obama Administration, just as Eisenhower endorsed Truman's Cold War framework. Mr. Obama has already climbed down on warrantless wiretapping, first claiming that surveillance of terrorist communications routed through the U.S. violated civil liberties but then voting for Mr. Bush's policy in June. A safe bet is that the Swift and other Treasury programs to monitor and freeze terror finances, which the Times pointlessly disclosed in 2006, are also due for reconsideration.
As we learned under FDR (internment camps), LBJ (spying on political enemies) and Bill Clinton (rendition to Arab regimes), liberals aren't as punctilious about civil liberties when liberals run the government. Who knows, maybe Guantanamo's false reputation as a gulag will be rehabilitated too.
Ellie