By Paul Greenberg
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Again with Guantanamo.
Whenever this president can't answer a direct question
about some failure of American security, or at least can't answer it
satisfactorily, he goes into his riff about the need to ... close the brig at
Guantanamo.
This shtick always works. It gets his true believers
applauding and his habitual critics stirred up. Ah, the best of both possible
political worlds! Best of all, he never has to get back to that embarrassing
question, having changed the subject.
There's a reason that an offshore military prison was set
up where it was: to confine terrorists and those suspected of being such
someplace where they could be safely questioned at length under military law.
Rather than transfer them to the mainland and treat them as ordinary criminal
suspects with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto. And take all
the risks such a move would involve. Including the possibility, indeed
probability, that, once read his rights à la Miranda, the prisoner will clam up
and American intelligence will be denied valuable information. The kind of
information that might prevent the next terrorist attack.
Our president, now confronted by tough questions about
terrorist attacks from Benghazi to Boston and why they weren't foiled, would
rather talk about the need to ... close the brig at Guantanamo.
Its existence offends him. As it has for years. Maybe
because American military law in general does; he doesn't seem to recognize it
as law at all but some kind of inferior substitute to be evaded whenever
possible. Even if the U.S. code of military justice predates the U.S.
Constitution, has a rich history of its own, and, when a new kind of barbaric
war is unleashed, has its indispensable uses. Uses that civil law may not,
especially in these times and these circumstances.
. .
The first military tribunals in this country were set up
by George Washington, who was commander of the continental army even before
there was a republic called the United States of America. As a charming British
gentleman, major and, alas, spymaster named John André discovered when he was
caught out of uniform -- with an American passport, false identity and detailed
plans of West Point, all supplied courtesy of the ever obliging Benedict
Arnold. The traitor got away, but his handler didn't.
The major was tried and sentenced to death by a
high-ranking board of senior American officers, a courtesy the British hadn't
bothered to extend to a young patriot named Nathan Hale. Major André was
promptly hanged -- duly, legally and justifiably. We were after all at war.
And, perhaps more relevant to these current times and this current war, we
realized it. And acted on that realization. To quote Alexander Hamilton:
"Never perhaps did any man suffer death with more justice, or deserve it
less."
. .
None of this law or history, or just prudence and
experience, is evident whenever our current chief executive and
commander-in-chief of the armed forces lectures the rest of us about the need
to close down a military prison now holding scores of dangers to the United
States and to civilization itself.
At those moments, the Hon. Barack Obama brings to mind
any glib young professor lecturing a class of first-year law students so
smoothly and earnestly he seems unaware that he's complicating his case more
than explaining it.
Close Gitmo? Fine. Nobody ever argued that it was the
ideal solution to the tricky problem of how to handle combatants, legal or
illegal, in this war on terror, only the best available now. And maybe
indefinitely. Our president doesn't seem to like that phrase, either -- war on
terror. It comes too close to calling something by its right name instead of
Overseas Contingency Operations, whatever that means, if anything.
Everybody regrets Gitmo's existence, or at least the
necessity for it. Yes, the law of war holds that combatants legal and illegal
may be held till hostilities are concluded. But, our president complains, our
we don't know when that could be. It could be forever!
Right, sir. And we didn't know when we could safely
release all those German and Italian prisoners once held in places like
Arkansas either, but we knew enough to try a bunch of German saboteurs caught
on American soil before a military court and execute just about every last one
of them. With dispatch. And justice. Now we seem to have a president whose
jurisprudence is full of juris but absent prudence. Close Gitmo? Sure thing,
Mr. President. And then do what, if anything?
Transfer all these military trials to lower Manhattan,
turn it into an armed fortress, and try all these nice people now at that Cuban
resort as though they were just pickpockets or purse-snatchers? Just ask Mayor
Bloomberg how that bright idea turned out, or rather didn't turn out, after New
Yorkers and the rest of the country got wind of it.
Close Gitmo and just duplicate it somewhere else, maybe
in the upper Midwest à la Fargo? Just Not In My Back Yard? But it's holding
these prisoners that's the essence of this debate, not where they're held. They
object to being imprisoned, not to the Cuban climate.
Close Gitmo and then what? Take the prisoners we want to
squeeze for information and hold them aboard a U.S. Navy ship for a couple of
months while they're grilled? This president has tried that, too. And he didn't
seem to like it. Understandably.
What about just sending the recalcitrant types back home
and letting their countries of origin figure out how to deal with them? But be
sure to call it repatriation because we've already called it rendition, and
that euphemism didn't fool anybody for long -- because no one could deny that
it made the United States of America a silent partner in their torture abroad.
So the president withdrew his support for it. (Good for him.)
Is there any clear alternative to Gitmo that this
president does recommend? He says he'll tell us later. No rush. He's had only
four years or so to find one. With any luck, he'll be talking about closing it
down it for another four years -- but only talking about it.
. .
Take a look at this president's rambling remarks at his
press conference last week and see if you can figure out what he was
recommending as an alternative to the prison at Guantanamo. Because it beats
me.
To quote a tactful summation offered by one of the wire
services: "He was ambiguous, however, about the most difficult issue
raised by the prospect of closing the prison: What to do with detainees who are
deemed dangerous but could not be feasibly prosecuted?" Despite the
president's wordy dissertation on that subject, he doesn't seem to have the
faintest idea.
The first requirement of justice, as it is the last,
whether civil or military justice, is moral clarity. For all his verbal
meandering at that presidential press conference, he steered clear of it. Moral
clarity is hard work. Delivering a moralistic lecture is a lot easier; there's
no heavy intellectual lifting involved.
Here was a chance for our president to ride one of his
favorite hobbyhorses without actually saying anything, and even please some of
his more fervid supporters on the left, who know they want Gitmo shut down but,
after that, draw a blank. Much as this president does. But that never keeps him
from running on about the subject, which is a lot easier than talking about the
latest misadventures -- and worse -- of the vast national-security apparatus he
is nominally in charge of.
Many of us look forward to hearing more from our
president on the subject of Guantanamo -- so long as the cell doors there
remain safely locked, bolted and barred while he prates on.
No comments:
Post a Comment