The Failure of Guantanamo

Guantanamo Bay has been in the news lately, especially since President Obama has declared his intent to close the detention facility there. One recent article reports a Pentagon statistic that 61 former Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorism since their release. Another article reports that one released detainee has become an Al Qaida chief in Yemen. These articles (which may not be accurate) are a normal part of political push-back, and are being used to argue that Guantanamo is needed and should remain open. When you think about it, though, they are actually confirmation that Guantanamo has failed and should be closed.

At the root of the problem is the decision made early on by the Bush administration to classify these detainees as "enemy combatants." The term is not an empty formality, and the decision to use it certainly not a casual one. Very simply, when the United States began to capture people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places after the 9/11 attacks, there were two choices. They could be classified as criminals, which would place them in the criminal justice system, and provide access to the normal rights of persons held under that system. Or, they could be classified as prisoners of war, which would place them in the traditional military wartime detention system, and provide access to the traditional rights of persons held under that system (most notably the Geneva Conventions). Neither choice was acceptable to an administration intent on using "enhanced interrogation techniques" to gain information. By inventing the new classification of "enemy combatant" the detainees could not claim any right or privilege from either the criminal or military systems. The most immediate result was that the administration would not be bound by the inconvenient restrictions of the Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions. The idea was that intelligence gathering would be enhanced in the short term.

The short-term decision has led to long-term problems. If the detainees were held in a (civilian or military) criminal justice system we could rely on a system of protocols and processes developed over hundreds of years to deal with a wide variety of situations. Similarly, if the detainees were held as prisoners of war we would have a system of protocols and procedures developed over hundreds of years to deal with them. Since the category of enemy combatant is newly invented, there are no protocols nor procedures in place to deal with the detainees. There is no process nor standard for obtaining evidence, weighing it, and using it against a (potentially) guilty detainee. The administration effectively had to make it up as they went, and it showed

The lack of process is evident in the constantly changing rules and conditions. For the first two years, detainees had no access to legal counsel. In 2006, the United States Supreme Court rejected the first attempt at a trial system. By 2007, the detainees were granted access to Federal courts. It is absurd that a system that should be central to our security - the system that actually completes the job initiated by the military fighting and dying to capture them - should be run in such a haphazard and ineffective way. By late 2008 no less than four prosecuting attorneys, including the chief prosecuter resigned in protest (Another article on the resignations.) Evidence that was used to place the detainees in Guantanamo was deemed unworthy for use in a trial. In the end, having no system to keep the detainees, we started letting them go.

Think about that. Pretend that all the detainees in the recent news articles were innocent when caught. The years of detention in Guantanamo under a non-existent legal system must have turned them against the United States, creating enemies where they did not exist before. Or assume that these people were actively involved in terrorist actions against the United States when they were captured. The decision to label them as enemy combatants effectively removed them from any known legal system that would have allowed the United States to try them, judge them, and if needed keep them detained. The lack of process set them free to fight against us again.

People can argue as to whether Guantanamo is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, and never agree. But we can measure Guantanamo in another dimension, the measure of effectiveness (turns out nations tend to do what's effective, whether it's right or wrong anyway). Guantanamo is not effective, and maybe we can agree on that. Of the roughly 775 detainees, about 450 have been released without charge. That means either the United States is so bad at catching bad guys that we throw innocent people into a prison reserved for the "worst of the worst" 60 percent of the time, or the system is so leaky that we let the guilty go 60% of the time. The Guantanamo approach fails well over half the time whether the detainee is innocent or guilty. And for that reason alone it should be closed down.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama

Some Republicans allow themselves to see some insidious meaning in Barack Obama's middle name - Hussein. It's used as a kind of code at rallies, as we saw recently in Florida when Sheriff Mike Scott introduced Sarah Palin at a rally. The idea is that Obama's true loyalties reside within his middle name. It's clearly a bad idea, in this time of national danger, to allow a man with this middle name to lead the war on terror. The Moose Goose Gazette thinks having Obama in charge during the war on terror would be as bad as having a guy with a Native American middle name be commanding general during the Indian Wars of the late nineteenth century (William TECUMSEH Sherman). Or as bad as having a man with a German last name lead the armies against Hitler (Dwight David EISENHOWER). Or to have a man with an Arabic last name lead the fight against Al Qaeida in Afghanistan and Iraq (John ABIZAID). A curious person may wonder why, of these and other examples, only Barack Obama is being portrayed in a suspicious light.
The point is this: conservatives have plenty of policy differences with Barack Obama to justify not voting for him. Demonizing him on top of these legitimate issues only promotes divisiveness, stunts honest debate, and is ultimately harmful to our country.

Winning The Post-Debate

Senator Obama may have won the debate by some arguable margin, but won the post-debate by an unarguable landslide. Two things happened after the debate that, if they get any media traction, can move undecided voters to Obama.
The (Perceived) Snub: Liberal blogs are all upset over John McCain refusing to shake hands with Barack Obama while they were working the crowd together. I think there's a lot more smoke than fire on this one. They shook hands right after the debate, while Tom Brokaw complained that they were blocking the view of his closing lines on the teleprompter. In the snub video, McCain clearly approached Obama so that Barack and Cindy could exchange pleasantries (Which is odd, given Cindy McCain's claims earlier in the day.) McCain simply didn't expect Obama to extend his hand, and so had an awkward moment. We've all had them... well, at least I have. So, while it's no secret that McCain isn't fond of Obama, I don't see a snub here. Still, if it gains traction in the media, it could hurt McCain.
A Man of the People: Far more telling was what happened next. John and Cindy McCain worked the crowd, walking around the room right to the exit and out the door. Barack and Michelle Obama worked the crowd and stayed. And stayed. And stayed. For at least 20 minutes, while the talking heads were dissecting the debate, the backdrop video showed Barack and Michelle simply spending time with the people. Talking, and smiling, and having pictures taken. The impression was that John McCain came for the debate, while Barack Obama came for the people. It doesn't matter if those interpretations are accurate, the impression is there. America got a great big dose of unscripted Barack and Michelle, mingling with the Joe Sixpack's the McCain campaign is appealing to...and enjoying it. For an undecided voter asking "Who understands the needs of everyday people?" it would be hard to pick the absent McCain over the engaged Obama.
The Moose Goose Gazette gives the post-debate to Obama as a clear winner.

Tea Leaves?

Probably every one of us knows what it's like to watch an interview of our favorite political villain and ask "How can you not ask about ?" Sometimes it can get pretty bad and your spouse has to remind you that the people on TV can't really hear you. And so you ask your spouse "But... how could they not ask about it?" This phenomena happens most often during election season when the politicians are taking their usual liberties with reality and the news people look the other way.
Something new has been happening lately during this election cycle. I noticed it shortly after Senator McCain picked Governor Palin as his running mate. The major media markets have been calling his and her bluffs. Not just the markets you would expect, either. Normally bland news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and ABC are fact-checking the McCain-Palin claims.
I think it started with Governor Palin. Her "No thanks" claim for the Bridge to Nowhere has been challenged repeatedly and pretty well run to ground. Her trooper-gate claims are being challenged by ABC. And when Charles Gibson was hand-picked to give the first interview to Governor Palin, he did not give her the softball interview and "deference" the McCain campaign demanded. Now the NY Times is reminding us that while the McCain-Palin campaign has criticized Barack Obama for receiving donations from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, McCain's own campaign manager earned $2 million as president of an advocacy group set up by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations. We've seen the Today Show question why John McCain rails against CEO's who are given golden parachutes while their employees are being laid off while one of his top advisors, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, received a $45 million golden parachute bailout while 20,000 Hewlett-Packard employees were laid off. And the low road approach of the McCain-Palin campaign has been criticized by numerous newspapers, including the International Herald Tribune, Newsweek, and even Karl Rove on FOX (though to be fair, Karl Rove also said that the Obama campaign has gone too far).
I take this as a sign that the media outlets are betting on an Obama win. There are some out there who believe that the liberal media are simply trying to ensure that Obama wins, but that doesn't take into account past behavior of letting similar claims slide. Nor does it take into account that major media outlets want to be on good terms with the victor, no matter who it is. That's just good business. There was a real change in the pre-Palin and post-Palin actions of the press. I suspect that the major media players were underwhelmed with the choice and believe that the Obama campaign can overcome her positive aspects to win.

Defending the Constitution

I was thinking about the ongoing discussions as to whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be the President of the US should the need arise and re-read the Presidential Oath of Office as a reminder of what the job entails. The Oath reads as follows:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Judging by what I see and hear, the vast majority of people interpret the "protect and defend" clause in its most obvious sense, whereby we are threatened by a foreign military power. Clearly, this is a highly unlikely scenario. We are still the only remaining superpower. Our military budget equals the rest of the world's nations military budgets combined.
Loss of Constitutional power through other actions, however, is always a possibility. Internal power grabs or slow erosion may occur. Preserving the Constitution in this sense requires a deep knowledge of the Constitution itself, as well as a familiarity with Constitutional interpretation and the historical court cases developing that interpretation. In this sense, Barack Obama certainly has the most credentials. He has a JD from Harvard and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. Next would be Joe Biden, who earned a JD at the Syracuse University College of Law and has a long career in the Senate. Senator Biden currently chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. Next is John McCain. His academic career at the Naval Academy was not directly related to law, but his long service in the House and Senate has clearly given him direct experience with the checks, balances, powers, and limitations laid out in the Constitution. Sarah Palin has none of this. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Communications-Journalism, two terms as the mayor of Wasilla, and is in her first term as the governor of Alaska. There is nothing in her resume indicating a sense of Constitutional Law, or issues that may arise. This unfamiliarity leaves her vulnerable to attack, and by extension, We The People are vulnerable if she is in office.
Sarah Palin has some good qualities. She's confident, articulate, intelligent, and aggressive. But, she doesn't have the training or experience to work within a Constitutional framework. Will she be able to protect Executive powers from a greedy Congress? Will she push back if her advisors attempt to push her further toward the Unitary Executive that George Bush's administration envisioned? I doubt she could gain that kind of insight in such a short time. Regardless of our political leanings, we should be able to agree that putting a Constitutional amateur in the White House is not the most likely way to ensure that the President can fulfill the Oath of Office.