I swear it’s funny how themes just hit the internet. A few days ago I was harping on how Guantanamo was better than our civilian prison system and then I read this op-ed titled “Why Close Guantanamo,” by Andrew McCarthy (lead prosecutor of the 1993 WTC bombers).
A much-anticipated report laments that prisoners “live under conditions, rules, and policies designed” for “incorrigibly violent” detainees. The security controls were found to be “extraordinary,” employing “isolation and lack of in-cell as well as out-of-cell programs and activities.” Even allowing that these measures were in fact designed for some of the most savage of killers, the report nonetheless asserted that the strictures imposed were “pointlessly harsh and degrading.” They included “extreme” measures such as “lack of windows, denial of reading material, a maximum of three hours a week out-of-cell time, [and] lack of outdoor recreation.”
In sum, the report concluded, the detention conditions imposed by the United States government “can only be explained as reflecting an unwillingness to acknowledge the inmates’ basic humanity.”
In short, the federal penitentiary at Florence, Colo., is no Guantanamo Bay.
On the contrary, Gitmo — despite being repeatedly condemned as a blight on America’s reputation by the Obama campaign, congressional Democrats, alleged human-rights activists, European solons, and the legion of lawyers who’ve volunteered their services to al-Qaeda — is a model facility. According to a Pentagon investigation to be presented at the White House this week — a study ordered with great fanfare by Barack Obama in the first hours of his presidency — the detention camp, where about 245 alien enemy combatants are held, is in full compliance with the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions.
Yep, read the whole damn thing.
Next, make sure you read the latest by Jonah Goldberg, noting that when it comes to our War on Terror, President Obama is finding a little different than candidate Obama did.
The new president has ordered that his predecessor’s rendition policies remain largely intact, even to the point of using the “state secrets” privilege to block a rendition lawsuit. Obama may have stated categorically that America “will not torture,” but outsourcing it is still OK. And Leon Panetta, the new head of the CIA, has said there might be wiggle room on interrogation policy here at home.
The White House also defends the Bush policy of imprisoning, without trial, enemy combatants captured abroad. Obama’s lawyers argued in a court case brought by Afghan prisoners at the U.S. Air Force base at Bagram, Afghanistan, that the “government adheres to its previously articulated position” — the one articulated by those evil Bush lawyers.
Meanwhile, a new Pentagon study commissioned by Obama has found that the prison at Guantanamo Bay meets the standards of the Geneva Conventions. One can only guess how the White House will make use of that finding. At the least, it should provide cover while the administration looks for alternatives to Gitmo that might not be all that alternative.
Oh, and speaking of Bagram airbase, wonder how all our Bush-bashing friends on the Left intend on giving Obama a free pass on that!
[Gitmo East, Investors Business Daily] After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that Guantanamo detainees had the legal right to challenge their detentions in American courts, four detainees held at Bagram thought they had a get out of jail free card. Following that ruling, petitions were filed on their behalf in a U.S. district court.
Apparently, in handling prisoners of war captured in the war on terror, the first law of real estate applies. The rights of detainees depend on location, location, location.
It is now the official opinion of the Obama administration that the detainees at Bagram have none while those at Gitmo, such as those who attacked the Navy destroyer Cole in a Yemeni harbor in 2000, have the same rights as any U.S. citizen.
Yes, we are confused too. In response to an inquiry by the judge regarding the habeas corpus rights of prisoners held in Afghanistan, acting Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz made a terse reply in papers filed before the court: “Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previous articulated position.”
The Obama administration position is that Bagram, where 600 jihadists are being held, differs from Gitmo in that it is in an active war zone and that Gitmo is technically U.S. territory, where the U.S. Constitution holds sway.
We’d argue that in the global war on terror, the entire United States, its possessions and its military bases are in a war zone and that this distinction is nonsense.
The Bush administration argued Guantanamo was constitutionally outside the U.S. The Supreme Court, after some legal gymnastics, concluded otherwise. The military tribunal system was designed to overcome such hairsplitting, but the Obama administration seems to think that is not a proper forum for even the likes of Abd al-Rahim Hussain Mohammed al-Nashiri. Charges against the Cole attack architect were dismissed so he could be retried later in a civilian court.
Retired Navy Capt. Kirk Lippold, who was the Cole’s captain at the time of the attack, said in a statement, “It appears the Obama administration, without consideration for its immediate impact or long-term effects, will use a legal maneuver to prevent these detainees from being held accountable for their heinous acts.”
It’s hard to square these contradictory positions on Gitmo and Bagram unless we consider that closing Gitmo was essentially a political decision, the fulfillment of a campaign promise and a sop to the American left that had nothing to do with America’s security.
Yep, it’s a lot easier to criticize our national security from the sidelines than it is as a president, eh?