AG Eric Holder on Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Interesting interview with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on NPR today, which can be read or listened to here. He echoes some points I raised back in May as to the weak arguments raised in opposition to holding some of the Gitmo detainees in the U.S. pending trial. Holder stated: "Some of the concerns that have been expressed by at least some in Congress seem illogical to me....We have in our prison system now people who are terrorists, people who are unbelievably bad criminals — and they are no threat to the surrounding community." Exactly. The concerns are not just illogical but, as I explained in an earlier post, just plain wussy. And hypocritical--especially coming from those who also ordinarily thump their chests about American exceptionalism.

It looks like the timidity finally may be waning. Today, House Democrats turned back a Republican effort to block the transfer of any prisoners to the U.S. for trial. There's absolutely no reason why we should expect other countries to take in all of the Gitmo detainees and bear the entire burden of our foreign policy misstep.

Guantanamo Update

A recent Washington Post article on the Obama administration's ongoing efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison can be found here. This is an issue I've blogged about a couple of times. What's interesting to me is: (1) Despite the skepticism and cynicism about the President's promise to close the embarrassing facility, the administration is quietly making great strides toward achieving its goal, and (2) Other countries around the globe are demonstrating more courage than those "tough on terrorism" U.S. leaders who are crying "NIMBY" when it comes to dealing with the Guantanamo detainees. Note in the article that foreign leaders WANT to do something to help Obama on this issue and that's precisely because the President has improved our standing in the world by doing the right thing on Guantanamo. On this issue, Obama is exactly right--our country's principled stands and hard work can lead to positive, concrete responses from other nations. That's something that's been missing on both ends during this decade.

Guantanamo: Wedge Issue or Wuss Issue?

According to an article in today's New York Times, the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has become an effective "wedge issue" for Republicans against Democrats and President Obama. To review, in politics, a wedge issue is an issue that is given emphasis primarily because of its potential to drive a wedge between voters and one's political opposition. So, make no mistake, the diatribes we're hearing on this issue are primarily politically-motivated rather than genuine concerns about local and national security.

Because if they are the latter, then those critics have a pretty wimpy view of our country and its people. They are arguing that, despite all of our resources, the U.S. cannot safely secure the remaining 240 Gitmo detainees, many of whom have been beaten down by years of imprisonment and would undoubtedly face a thoroughly unpleasant ordeal incarcerated in a U.S. facility. That's 4.8 prisoners per state. According to a study by the Pew Center, as of 2007, the U.S. housed 7.3 million inmates in our prisons, including all sorts of ruthless criminals who have "killed Americans." We really can't handle 5 more in each state? And it's probably fewer than that because there may be a few more who have been wrongly jailed and should be released anyway (see earlier post on this topic). And, yes, I can honestly say that I would have no problem with a detainee holding facility in my community as it would probably be one of the most secure prisons in the history of the world.

I don't recall an outpouring of fear and outrage about the possibility of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh escaping captivity and repeating his horrific acts. Yet, prior to 9/11, McVeigh had launched the most lethal terrorist attack on U.S. soil. How is this different? Have we lost our nerve, along with our principles? If those opposing the closing of Guantanamo have done so, then their America is a weak nation easily confounded. Or, more likely, they indirectly suggest this in pursuit of the almighty "wedge issue" and its momentary political payoff. So which is it? Playing politics or playing scared? Wedge issue or wuss issue?

Nicholas Kristof on Guantanamo

Much has been written about the travesty of Guantanamo Bay, but Nicholas Kristof's latest take on the issue in the New York Times is one of the most effective and efficient that I've read yet. The case of Sami al-Hajj gets at the utter emptiness and cynicism of the official rationales for this horrific facility. Kristof correctly argues that opposing torture should not be considered being "squeamish" on terrorists. I would go farther. It's easy and cowardly to keep this charade going; it provides artificial comfort to anxious Americans while our leaders hide from the intelligence, cultural, and political work needed to truly cripple and eliminate violent extremists.

One quibble about the piece: Why did Kristof choose Katie Couric for his analogy? The comparison holds up just as well (actually, better, since al-Hajj is male) with Brian Williams, or Dan Rather, who probably daydreams about such foreign peril anyway. Putting Couric in the clutches of Iran seems to be injecting a needless strain of paternalism into the analysis. Happy Valentines Day, Katie.....