I’ve been a chief critic of folks who want to get their flame on regarding the Obama administration for things he has not done yet, but this sure seems like it is worth some attention:
President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.
“I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do,” Obama said in an exclusive “This Week” interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.
“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the president-elect explained. “Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”
But Obama said unequivocally that it will close. “I don’t want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our Constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.”
I don’t doubt that things are more difficult than expected, because there is no telling what sort of hash the Bush administration has made of things. I am sure there is a a jumble of labyrinthian rules and regulations and conflicting guidances that have been cobbled together over the past few years in order to stay one step ahead of the law. The Bush policy of DWTFWW most likely has mangled things a bit. But that doesn’t excuse breaking a promise as critical and as fundamental as closing Gitmo. Gitmo has been a disaster for us, and it needs to be closed.
In the grand scheme of things it won’t matter to me if that is done in 75 days or 100 or 150 days, so long as it is handled rather quickly, but this does seem to suggest that Team Obama is looking for wiggle room or attempting to lower expectations. As such, I think it would be appropriate for folks to generate the appropriate outrage to force Obama to keep his word on this. We didn’t set the 100 day mark for this- he did. Unlike other situations, this is not based on speculation from an unnamed source in the WSJ- this is straight from the horse’s mouth (and no, McCain campaign, I am not calling Obama a horse), and echoes the rhetoric of the craziest of the crazy at NRO.
Also of note, this:
Q: The most popular question on your own website is related to this. On change.gov it comes from Bob Ferdick of New York City and he asks, ‘Will you appoint a special prosecutor ideally Patrick Fitzgerald to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping.’
OBAMA:We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. … My orientation is going to be moving foward.
Of course I understand the need to be forward looking, but I simply reject this notion that we should no nothing about past abuses and possible crimes because we don’t want our intelligence services looking over their shoulders. Of course we do. We have spent decades with an intelligence and foreign policy establishment that has never been held accountable, never had to look over their shoulders, never been required to pay for their sins and their failings, and what do we have to show for it? With the stories of unaccountable and unnamed intelligence agents at the center of the abuses at Gitmo and Abu Gharaib, is a blanket pardon for their sins and crimes the way forward?
I would suggest not. Common sense would suggest not. If team Obama is intent on restoring us to the status of a nation that does not torture, they are just going to have to suck it up and make sure that those who have tortured and those who have committed crimes are brought to justice. Sometimes there are no bi-partisan solutions to these things, because the other side is JUST PLAIN WRONG. There really is no way around it, and there really is no way to make sure the message is sent loud and clear- we do not torture, and those who do will be prosecuted.
*** Update ***
I should probably point out that Obama can’t really signal right now that there will be a special prosecutor, anyway, and needs to be very cagey with his statements. If he sends the signal that he is going to prosecute, Bush will just emulate Tim F.’s favorite governor, Ernie Fletcher, and start issuing blanket pardons.
*** Update #2 ***
Wait a minute- Did Obama actually ever promise to close Gitmo in the first 100 days? Did I just fall for another one of ABC’s special ginned up stories in which they just flat out make shit up and then flame Obama for not adhering to their fantasy? See also- Jake Tapper and cigarette smoke.
*** Update #3 ***
Looks like once again, I have fallen prey to Tapperesque nonsense from ABC. I have scoured the intertrons and can’t find any promise it would be closed in the first 100 days. Around the 11th and 12th of November, there were a slew of stories about how closing Gitmo was a priority, but there was no fixed time.
Karen
"we do not torture, and those who do will be prosecuted."
Not only that, but what has happened in the past can’t be prevented in the future if no one looks to see. To move forward, you have to look at the past. Blindly going forward, with no regard to what’s already happened is a guarantee it will happen again. Prosecute those at the top for the action of all, because they allowed it.
Frank Sobotka
Guantanamo is a kafkaesque nightmare, and purposely designed as such. It doesn’t sound to me at all like Obama is hedging vis a vis closing Gitmo. It sounds to me like he’s being transparent and honest about the realities of the situation: if we closed Guantanamo tomorrow, where does everyone go? Home? What if their home countries don’t want them because they’re "terrorists"? What if sending them to their home countries means they’ll be arrested on the spot and sent into an even darker prison? Settling them in the United States would create a political shitstorm ("Terrorists in our midst!"). There is a lot of shit to untangle.
I take his comments regarding a possible truth commission a little less warmly. It may be politically unpopular and may seem like the wrong thing to do when he needs to spend political capital building a consensus on economic recovery, but it is still a moral issue that needs resolving. Bush and Cheney can’t go into the history books as the ones who got away with torture.
Lihtox
I’m okay with not shutting down Guantanamo Bay immediately; some of the prisoners are probably actually guilty, after all, and it’s reasonable to spend some time figuring out what to do about them. What I would like is a promise that the practices at Gitmo be changed, not in 100 days, but immediately. In fact, I kinda think the Obama administration should bend over backwards to make the prisoners there as comfortable as possible: better food, vastly increased access to their family and the outside world, etc. They should also give access to journalists, Amnesty International, and other organizations as soon as possible. After all, the problem with Gitmo isn’t the location itself, it’s what has been done there.
Just Some Fuckhead
You can’t close Guantanamo until you figure out what to do with the folks there. It’s an incredibly complicated situation and it’s only gotten worse in Bush’s second term. Man, if a lot of these folks that are interested in accountability now would have been serious enough about it in 2004 to vote against Bush, Obama wouldn’t be staring at all these intractable problems.
Rainy
I think he’s just being realistic. Nothing wrong with that. I think everybody should run for President and see how they like it.
jbb
I can’t find anywhere Obama said he would close Gitmo in 100 days. I can find lots of places where activists "launched drives" to encourage him to do that, but I simply can’t find what you’re talking about, John. That seems like a very silly promise to make. Can you provide a link?
[N.B. in case I’m missing something really obvious: I had surgery two days ago and I’m on some pretty heavy painkillers.]
donovong
I have no doubt that Gitmo will be mothballed as soon a humanly possible. An arbitrary target of any number of days is unrealistic, even if MY PRESIDENT made the comments. As far as prosecution goes, I have not heard him say no – I have heard MY PRESIDENT say that he prefers to look forward, but he will give credence to his Attorney General when it comes to recommendations for prosecution.
Nine more days and the long nightmare is over.
sparky
you and i don’t torture.
you and i will go to jail if we do.
the permanent overclass? not so much.
and no, the peasantry doesn’t get to see what goes on in its government. can’t trust citizens to do the right thing, after all. besides, it’s all in the past.
i realize it’s hard to erase one idea of the US and replace it with another, but we really are two different countries: the proles, and those connected with the overclass, either through money, rank or family. my new term for the US is that it’s a cronyocracy.
i could go on and on about how bad a cronyocracy is for the general public, but so far the general public doesn’t really seem to care. as time goes by, Jefferson’s remark that republics should just start over every twenty years seems more and more on the mark. it would be destabilizing, true, but i’m not sure that stability of this system is much of a prize worth keeping.
Feebog
A good start would be to release a significant number of detainees who clearly were not directly involved in terrorists activites. There are still some 250 detainees, many of whom were simply swept up by Afgan milita groups. Although many of them have been released, a significant number still remain in custody. Get the process moving, and deal with the remainder as quickly as possible.
R-Jud
He certainly didn’t say no, but if he were to explicitly say "Yep, we’re going after them", I imagine there would be even more stonewalling from GOP congresscritters on anything he tries to get done with the economy (and probably a fair few Democrats as well). It would be Obama’s DADT, only with much more dire consequences for the entire country. So I am keeping my fingers crossed about it– and plan to make some noise with my reps back in IL, whoever they end up being (in addition to the unsettled Senate seat business, Rahm Emanuel was my US Rep).
The Grand Panjandrum
I just watched this interview I understood Obama to be saying that Holder would be the one to prosecute (or not) those guilty of war crimes. It certainly warrants closely watching but are we absolutely sure Obama is showing all of his hand at this moment? Let’s face it, we are talking about prosecuting war criminals who also happen to have the entire state run apparatus at their fingertips until January 20. Maybe I sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist but I have learned over the past eight years that you can NEVER overestimate the treachery of these bastards.
As far as closing Gitmo goes, it looks like Kansas politicians are not in favor of those hardcore cases being move to Ft Leavenworth. Imagine that: NIMBY. (I originally read about this at Think Progress.) I’m sure the Democratic Governor of Kansas is all for closing Gitmo, as long as her state doesn’t have to stretch a bit and play this role. Of course, the Republicans aren’t thrilled about this opportunity to play a pivotal part in restoring some modicum of decency in how we treat POW’s.
JL
If Obama believe’s that no one is above the law then he should follow through. His comments on Guantanamo caused me hesitation because it sounded like they were tortured to the point where they could not stand trial. I wish he would go to Guantanamo in order to survey the conditions.
@Lihtox: I agree
robertdsc
With a briefcase full of pardons and a lifetime pension for each pardoned prisoner, courtesy of the United States Government.
wilfred the shoe throwing Norwegian
Before we can be serious about ‘our’ values we’d better have some honest talk about ‘we’ mean by that. A good part of the American population has no problem with Guantonamo, and other things.
By all means, let’s talk about values.
sparky
@wilfred the shoe throwing Norwegian: ehhh, looked under the rocks in this country lately? there’s some ugly stuff there. now it’s not even under the rocks. be careful what you wish for.
TheHatOnMyCat
This pre-inaugural period shall be known in the future as
"The Days When There Was Nothing to Write About."
As opposed to, you know, six months from now when we are all in shit up to our ears and praying for Obama to rescue us from the last eight years.
wilfred the shoe throwing Norwegian
@sparky:
That’s the point I’m making. Even if Obama is sincere, it won’t make much of a difference as a significant majority in the government, including members of his own party, have shown little inclination to contest certain excesses on the basis of ill-defined "American" values.
What exactly are ‘our’ values these days?
El Cid
Obama may also be aware that the right is slavering to follow the destinies of each and every Guantanamo detainee released so that they can have a story like "Obama let this dangerous guy go and then he went and blowed up a tourist spot / allied government office / train station / U.S. soldier," which is what the right wants to get out of the closing of G’tmo.
Joshua Norton
Why the hell is he cozying up to that little "where’s your flag pin" weasel in the first place? I’ve been paying pretty close attention to everything Obama has said during his campaign and I’ve never heard him say closing Gitmo would happen within a specified short amount of time, just that it would happen as soon as feasibly possible.
ABC should be relegated to the Faux Noise wilderness as far as access to the new administration goes. They’ll make shit up whether they’re allowed to ask their little "gotcha" questions or not.
sparky
@wilfred the shoe throwing Norwegian: i know. that was my point as well. am a bit concerned that we may end up legitimating this crap. a rationalized but evil process is not a good, imo, and it’s all to easy to substitute procedural values for substantive norms.
Nellcote
Perhaps Obama is aware that the only info he has was given by BushCo. Perhaps he thinks that once he is in office he will have access to a fuller picture and can firm up his plans accordingly.
J Royce
wilfred the shoe throwing Norwegian asks: "What exactly are ‘our’ values these days?"
Might Makes Right.
It is why we are no longer liberal. Our values were changed for us, away from We the People and civil rights … to an upward awed gaze at our celebrity Masters of state, sport and screen.
There is precedent.
Ancient Rome was a rival of the Carthaginians. After decades of war, a shaky peace was established with severe restraints placed on Carthage, the last city of that nation’s empire.
Carthage prospered unexpectedly, however, and Rome’s merchants grew hungry for its wealth. But Rome’s citizens, who were the world’s first Middle Class, had soured on war and would not support an invasion of Carthage for looting.
Cato the Elder, staunch Conservative of the Senate, began thundering "Carthago delenda est" [Carthage must be destroyed] in every speech he gave to the Senate. Over and over and over, showing he was a man of unbending will and unwavering purpose. Weaker minds began to agree…
But still the Roman citizens were reluctant, and a new idea came to the merchants. Toy swords were given out to little Roman children, and the gladiator show-games were made more brutal, using Carthaginian prisoners against Roman fighters.
In a few years, the Roman population was eager for war. The now-cheered legions lay seige to the walls of Carthage, famously razing the city to the ground and salting the earth.
From that time Rome began a descent into voyeurism of violence; the Games grew bloodier to distract from the merchants who formed vast Corporations to buy up land in central Italy, employing slave labor to plow up food crops to plant more profitable wine vineyards. The Middle Class was forced to compete with slave wages and was dispossessed; the impoverished citizenry drifted to the cities to become "The Masses.". Grain had to be imported from Egypt to replace the farm produce destroyed by the merchant profiteers. This was the origin of Rome’s "Bread & Circuses."
Public schools have stopped teaching Latin, from which students could read the lessons of history for themselves. Only a very foolish nation would ever let Conservatives influence public education or its funding —
kommrade reproductive vigor
You know the ReThugs are dumb enough to believe this shit. Obama’s only challenge is to keep a straight face and find enough platters. He’s going to be serving a lot of cretins their big fat asses, over and over and over again.
John Cole
That is the same attitude the Bush administration had towards the media. I will pass.
passerby
WRT prosecuting wrongdoings of the Bush/Cheney admin, lest we forget that they implemented their tyrannical agenda in a global manner. Not only war crimes, but financial fraud too.
Perhaps Obama knows what the World Court has in its hopper and we will see prosecution in that theater.
These crimes should not be left to dangle out there, unacknowledged and unaddressed as history marches on.
Dave_No_Longer_Laughing
I haven’t seen any calls to pardon Lynndie England. Or to revise LG Rick Sanchez’s history. So…
I’d rather have President Obama get his economic stimulus in working order than close Gitmo. Shoot, our "National Disgrace" is that outrage is misdirected. Don’t you kids have homework to do?
Comrade Stuck
Gitmo is like every other situation that Obama is grappling with as Presnit elect. He’s likely getting briefings from the Bushies, both civilian and military, but he and his team will not really start to learn the details of this giant war crime until they have the keys to the file cabinets, and authority over military persons involved.
I watched the Bush interview this morning on Fox News Sunday and was struck by Bush’s words and demeanor when the subject of prisoner treatment came up. About every third , fourth and fifth word was "It was legal", and he looked genuinely fearful when discussing it. Other than the core AlQuaeda there now, like KSM and 5 or 6 six others, I doubt there is much evidence against the rest — excepting the hear say kind and the coerced kind.
Whatever course Obama takes on this, I hope these people are allowed to tell their story in an open legal forum, and in their own words about what has happened to them at GItmo and other torture crime scenes. I will be watching Obama closely that he doesn’t try and squelch the truth for "forward looking" reasons, or not wanting to embarrass the GOP. It’s still too early to make any kind of call on his intentions, imo.
ChrisB
@R-Jud: I see it the same way. He’s being very politic and he’s certainly entitled to an opportunity to consider the question of what to do with possible criminals who may only be convicted with tainted evidence with all the facts at his disposal. It’s exactly what a constitutional law lecturer would say.
kay
Closing Guantanamo in 100 days is a ludicrously short period of time. We’re getting March dates in my local yahoo County court, for motions filed last week.
It’s 90 days, give or take. Nothing remotely connected to the legal system takes 90 days, and they’d be coordinating with federal courts, and federal prisons, presumably. That’s with a PLAN. That’s with some kind of rewrite of the process now in place. They don’t have a plan.
That’s just crazy. That was a silly ABC-type question.
kay
The first question (of many) is whether the Bush-version of the probable cause hearings that have been held regarding the prisoners are valid, or whether new probable cause hearings should be conducted, within the US, under US code.
They can’t hold them in the US without charging them with something, and Obama can’t come charging in and release them, willy nilly. That’s as arbitrary and stupid as the original mistake, opening the place.
Brien Jackson
I think it’s really unfortunate that the Bush administration made this such a contentious issue over the last 6 years that people have largely forgotten the context of the question. Obviously there was never any question that the US could detain people we caught on the battlefield or who otherwise were fighting against us, and whether they were held in Guantanamo Bay or on the moon was irrelevant. Rather, the question was whether or not the detainees were going to be afforded Geneva rights and other basic legal protections.
It seems to me that the argument over closing Guantanamo creates a needlessly complicated problem for us, and the simplest answer is to leave Gitmo open as a detention center, but to abide by Geneva and all other aspects of international law concerning POW’s and "enemy combatants."
slag
Across this line, you do not…!
I have no doubt that closing Guantanamo is going to be a gimme for Obama (even if it will likely take some time to untangle). I am more concerned about the real possibility that he’s not going to embark on torture investigations. He says he doesn’t want anyone to be above the law (yay!), but then he says that he may let some people get away with being above the law (boo!). And he uses the tired strawman of the poor low-level CIA guy to boost his case. I’m sorry, but if you’re willfully breaking the law, we do want you to be looking over your shoulder. That’s why we have a justice system in this country.
That said, I’m pleased to not have to worry about the upcoming administration being engaged in these kinds of activities–torture, extraordinary rendition, etc. As low a bar as that might be, it’s still a bar.
Mudflap
I find the notion that Obama will be looking forward rather than backwards enheartening. The justice department’s caseload is badly overloaded anyway. The new policy of only looking forward will mean that they no longer need pursue past murders, robberies, kidnappings, torture, etc. What a breath of fresh air!
Handy – much like the Bush "Get over it" philosophy (So, we stole your TV and wrecked your county. It is a done deal, quit whining and get over it!)
J
By it’s very nature, all corrective justice is backward looking. Part, though only part, of the rationale for punishing past misdeeds is, of course, forward looking: to deter future crimes.
Consider also the following. Tomorrow’s crimes will be in the past the day after tomorrow. On that day, the argument for ignoring yesterday’s crimes because of the need to look forward to the future (now the day after the day after tomorrow) can be applied again without alteration and again on the following day and so on ad infinitum.
A proper regard for the future would lead us to reject this argument now and forever and insist that justice for past crimes be done now and in future.
Comrade Stuck
@Mudflap:
Funhouse Proverb — teevee doesn’t make people stoopid. People make people stoopid.
Gerry
Angus Walters was the captain years ago of the famous Nova Scotian schooner Bluenose. This may not be word for word correct but his advice to new captains was that "the best way to steer a straight course is to watch the wake you leave behind".
just little me
Gitmo will be closed, I have no doubt.
As to prosecuting torturers, Obama is not going to tip his hand about the possibilities in a more definitive way right now for a few reasons:
-Eric Holder is already facing contentious confirmation hearings, so there is no need to add fuel by promising that DOJ will prosecute.
-There is no need to instill worry in the outgoing people which could cause them to destroy evidence and records.
-They haven’t seen all the evidence yet.
passerby
@just little me:
Wise observation here, justlittleme. Strategery:
-Eric Holder is already facing contentious confirmation hearings, so there is no need to add fuel by promising that DOJ will prosecute.
-There is no need to instill worry in the outgoing people which could cause them to destroy evidence and records.
-They haven’t seen all the evidence yet.
This guy, Barack Obama, is smart. He always seems to have rhyme and reason even if it’s not immediately apparent.
It figures that all he knows is not for public consumption.
TenguPhule
John, isn’t it about time you created a new tag for yourself, something like "I’ve been Tapped"?
Objective Scrutator
Wow. The media is so liberal that it flames Obama for not bringing about anarchy to our foreign policy fast enough.
Thankfully, Obama is being fairly responsible about this, as far as moonbats go. After all, if Guantanamo closes, millions of jobs will be lost, which means that Obama’s stimulus plan is going to have to be 1500 times as good as it is right now.
A better plan for Obama would be for him to privatize Guantanamo and allow a contractor to manage it, instead. This would serve several purposes: troops would be allowed to be hired by these contractors to kidnap Islamists and keep them under lock and key while they do hard labor and tell us their secrets.
In the end, though, I think that having Jack Bauer as the head of the CIA would be the best solution.
kay
@Brien Jackson:
It IS the wrong question, but it’s being asked because they didn’t apply due process or Geneva, which is why they held them in Cuba, right? Because they couldn’t hold them in the US without process?
And that takes us right back to the question of coming up with a process, or somehow bringing them within existing process, now, 8 years later. "Difficult" is an understatement.
Not to mention where we return those who should never have been held at all. Country of origin? What if there’s no acceptable process there?
wilfred the shoe thrower
Regardless of whether he closes it immediately or in 100 days Obama seems to have accepted some Bush values. Greenwald zeros in on the same ‘tainted but true’ quote:
So much for values.
Person of Choler
Shorter Balloon-Juice Posts January 2009-January 2013, with an option to extend to January 2016:
If Bush did it, it is evil.
If Obama does it, it is right and just or at least able to be nuanced to seem right and just.
If Obama does something that looks bad, it will be because Bush set it up to happen.
Zuzu's Petals
@wilfred the shoe thrower:
I don’t agree. There are all sorts of reasons evidence can be considered "tainted" so it can’t be admitted in a court of law, some pretty technical in nature.
To immediately assume the extreme case, that the evidence was obtained under torture, is sloppy reasoning on Greenwald’s part. In my opinion anyway.
wilfred the shoe thrower
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Fair enough, but given that it’s Gitmo and its peculiarities that are being discussed what other possiblities for evidence being tainted actually exist?
Cyrus
I’d like to see stronger investigations and prosecutions than we’ve been told we’ll get, but there are at least two problems with this insistence on getting Patrick Fitzgerald hmiself to do it. First of all, where did people get this idea that he’s some incorruptible crusader? Is there really no other prosecutor that’s trustworthy in the country? If not, uh oh. Even if he is actually the best of our limited options, don’t make the mistake of thinking everything he does is right. (Like Obama himself, I guess.) Mark Felt, as Deep Throat, brought down Nixon, but then again, he’s also the guy whose illegal investigation tactics prevented William Ayers from being convicted. The former is much more important than the latter, but still.
The other, more concrete problem with focusing on Fitzgerald is, it would take him away from one of his current assignments: Blagojevich. Do we really, really want Obama to reassign the prosecutor on that case of all things? There’s a reason for the phrase "appearance of impropriety"…