President Obama has, to use that overworked poker metaphor, doubled down on closing the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison. He’s sticking to his hasty decision and to the corollary of moving the inmates to the U.S. mainland, for trial in the civilian courts, trial by military commission or indefinite detention without trial. The sole justification offered for this course of action is the supposedly beneficial impact that it will have on our country’s reputation.
Both Houses of Congress have rejected this quarter-baked plan by overwhelming majorities. The President has now committed himself to reversing legislative opinion, which will first require reversing public opinion. If he can do that, he will almost measure up to his own estimation of his political and rhetorical skills.
So let’s suppose that he gets his way. What’s more drearily predictable than the response of the folks he’s trying to impress? The same leftists and Islamofascists who railed against Guantanamo will denounce civilian juries as prejudiced, military tribunals as kangaroo courts and “supermax” prisons as medieval dungeons. To some extent, they may have better material to work with than before. I’d be very surprised if conditions at, say, Florence, Colorado, are a fraction as humane as at Guantanamo:
Most cells’ furniture is made almost entirely out of poured concrete, including the desk, stool, and bed. Each chamber contains a toilet that shuts off if plugged, a shower that runs on a timer to prevent flooding, and a sink missing a potentially dangerous tap. Rooms may also be fitted with polished steel mirrors bolted to the wall, an electric light, a radio, and a television set that shows recreational, educational and religious programming. These privileges can be taken away as punishment. The 4 in (10 cm) by 4 ft (1.2 m) windows are designed to prevent the prisoner from knowing his specific location within the complex because he can see only the sky and roof through them. Telecommunication with the outside world is forbidden, and food is hand-delivered by correctional officers.
The prison as a whole contains a multitude of motion detectors and cameras, 1,400 remote-controlled steel doors, and 12 ft (3.66 m) high razor wire fences. Laser beams, pressure pads, and attack dogs guard the area between the prison walls and razor wire.
Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park bomber, lamented in a series of 2006 letters to a Colorado Springs newspaper that the ADX is meant to “inflict misery and pain.”
All of that is just fine with me, and I’m unimpressed by Eric Rudolph’s whining. But think about how these security measures will be described by left-wing British newspapers and al-Jazeera – and how the New York Times will react when mufsidun complain about their “misery and pain”.
How does the ledger balance? On one side, the President weakens his own country’s moral authority by agreeing with the slanders spread by our enemies. On the other, he takes steps that will inspire a new round of anti-American protest. This can can’t be kicked very far down the road. At some point, Barack Obama must either defend the essential rightness of America’s post-9/11 anti-terrorist policies (much as Richard Cheney has) or openly join the nutroots and give free rein to our enemies. I’m confident that he’ll stop short of the latter, but life will be easier if he recognizes reality now, keeps Guantanamo Bay in operation, and acknowledges that George W. Bush did indeed display foresight, as well as wholly rational fear, when his Administration fashioned the policies that have kept us safe for seven years.
Further reading: Arthur Herman, “The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard”Fred Barnes, “Obama Blames Bush”
It's not a straw man argument. President Obama's anti-terrorist policies are essentially the same as Bush's. At some point he has to either acknowledge that or change his policies to fit his words, doesn't he?
Posted by: Mike Kriskey | Sunday, May 24, 2009 at 09:39 PM
The bottom line is that more than likely our Nation will be lost via hyperinflation and globalism so I do not see why this is such a media frenzy when we are about to economically hyperinflate. Our economy demise is more a threat to our country than anything else at the moment, but then again perhaps that is what the powers that be wish for America. A Constitutional Republic should not be at the mercy of an inimical financial system and needs reform.
Posted by: Theresa | Friday, May 22, 2009 at 08:56 AM
"At some point, Barack Obama must either defend the essential rightness of America’s post-9/11 anti-terrorist policies (much as Richard Cheney has) or openly join the nutroots and give free rein to our enemies."
Talk about a straw-man argument. No middle ground between the two, eh?
No possibility of letting the justice system do its job?
Charlie Manson got nuthin on those "Islamo-Facistas"?
Posted by: pbh | Thursday, May 21, 2009 at 02:14 PM