I sorta thought closing Guantanamo was real high on the priority list. . .
And Iraq was a bad thing that we needed to get out of ASAP. . .
We were going to end indefinite detentions and military tribunals. . .
Then there’s that evil rendition thing, still evil, still policy. . .
Weren’t we at least going to officially recognize the Armenian genocide? Guess even that was too much to ask.
People used to laugh at me when I said there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats. The laughter’s kind of forced now.
7 Comments
Steve Buchheit · May 6, 2009 at 10:26 am
1) So far they’ve only ruled out the lawyers and the people on the ground. The lawyers will have complaints filed with their state bar associations. We’ve already prosecuted some military people on the ground. That still leaves those civilians who ordered it, and the middle military people who followed the civilian leadership.
2) The Congressman is correct in saying they haven’t identified where the Obama administration is going to send the detainees, and this is a temporary negotiating tactic. Pres. Obama’s order still stands, Gitmo detention center to be closed by January.
3) The SoFA agreement hasn’t been renegotiated, not staying.
4) Speculation, and you’ll note he’s adding in protections, probably making it a full military court instead of the modified rules the previous Administration kept trying
5) Administrations typically keep the same legal argument in cases pending for career lawyer continuity (unlike the previous administration which decided to gut several prosecutions when they took office)
6) He has called in genocide after being sworn in, just not in the face of the Turkish parliament when he addressed them. It’s called diplomacy with a strategic NATO ally, one we’re trying to keep from invading northern Iraq. I know it’s been some time since we’ve actually seen that, but it didn’t use to be such a strange concept.
S Andrew Swann · May 6, 2009 at 11:30 am
1) So we have institutionalized the idea that “only following orders” is a defense?
2) So they can go anywhere, just not Gitmo? A detention camp by any other name…
3) So current policy is essentially exactly the same as the policy beforehand, and the policy that would be in place in a McCain administration.
4) He’s adding “protections,” I feel all warm and fuzzy when the state offers me “protections” in my secret military tribunals… Frankly, it’s gone from the rhetoric of OMG EVIL to, OMG UR DOIN EVIL WRONG.
5) So that explains why they’re standing firm on the “you can’t sue anyone for illegally spying on you, sorry” line.
6) You’re ascribing diplomatic nuance to an administration that’s given DVDs and iPods to heads of state, and is starting to engage our only real ally in the middle east in a game of nuclear chicken.
Steve Buchheit · May 7, 2009 at 1:20 pm
1) No, we prosecuted the people at Abu Garib. As it’s come out, they were “following orders.” I’ll go with you on not agreeing with the policy of not prosecuting the CIA and SOCOM people who did the nitty-gritty (after all, CIA operations keep insurance to help with defense). But the previous administration went to great lengths to “legalize” the procedure (mostly because of push back from the uniformed staff). If given the choice to spend political capital, I’d rather have those who authorized the use, and those who justified it.
2) Yes, they’re PoWs (in some cases). They’ve been held at Gitmo because the previous administration tried to use the (somewhat dubious) claim that since they weren’t on US soil, they weren’t protected by the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. Fortunately the SCOTUS has shot down those arguments. Where we hold them does make a difference. That we continue to hold those who are enemies and process out those who aren’t a danger is the mission here.
3) One could make the argument that the SOFA time schedule was a by product of the campaign. The difference between Obama’s first plan and the SOFA is 2 months.
4) If he makes it a full military court, I’ve got no problem with that. It was the denial of evidential procedure, denial of challenge for cause, and denial of appeal (and other small differences) that all the screaming was about. The military tribunals the previous administration put in place stripped all “protections” from the defense. That’s what SCOTUS batted down.
5) Yes. That way lay madness. Obama has an eye toward continuity. This is why Presidents, of all parties, belong to a exclusive club. They defer to each other. My guess would be if President Bush had written the “torture memos” they wouldn’t have been released. Much of what Obama has been doing in this direction has been restoring the original openness of the office, rolling back the policies of the previous administration.
6) He’s learning, and he’s listening to the career staff. The earlier gifts were done without such help and insight. And if you’re referring to Pakistan, I could debate “ally”. I could also debate that the state of Pakistan has fallen, what remains is to see which insurgency wins power, those of the previous state or the Taliban (supported by the ISI).
S Andrew Swann · May 7, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Rather than going down a bullet point by bullet point back and forth (which I insure you could last until the NEXT administration) I will simply point out that we are operating from two essentially different premises. Wherein I look into all administrations with a near paranoid skepticism. I hope you’re right about the whole openness thing, I don’t see it (except openness as to the mistakes of the prior administration) especially as to flurries of legislation and spending that’s pushed out with no oversight at all until after the fact.
BTW, I will give you #6, there’s always a learning curve there with a new administration and I do cut a little slack (but only a little, given how big a part of his campaign it was) but FYI I was talking about them making noises that they might pressure Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steve Buchheit · May 8, 2009 at 8:56 am
Now worries, Steve, and I’m sure we could argue this all the way until the next administration. I also approach it with skepticism (ie. the thing that rankles me is that Obama hasn’t put down the wire-tapping powers the Bush Administration seized). And that would be interesting for us to try and force Israel to sign a treaty we have also violated (India). Plus, I’m not sure there’s anybody who would actually want Israel’s technology (who could buy it on the open market) and the people that might buy from them would be the very people they would never want to sell to (their close neighbors). Plus they probably wouldn’t want to sign anyway, as they deny they have the bomb in the first place. They would have to admit to too much (either they have them, or don’t have as many as everybody thinks they have).
S Andrew Swann · May 8, 2009 at 9:25 am
re: Obama hasn’t put down the wire-tapping powers the Bush Administration seized
First rule of Executive power. Once taken, it is never, ever, willingly ceded. Partisans need to realize this; that they cannot grant expansive powers to the State just because it’s their guy in power. The next guy is not likely to say, “this was a blatantly unconstitutional power grab.” A lot more likely to say, “ohh, shiny!”
michelle · May 8, 2009 at 2:46 pm
That is why I’m of the opinion government can never get smaller without a revolution. And revolution is NOT a dinner party.
Comments are closed.