Oh, yes, yes, yessssssss, we can!
By Mark Steyn
Saturday, January 24, 2009
How dazzling is President Obama? So dazzling that he didn’t merely give a dazzling inaugural speech. Any old timeserving hack could do that. Instead, he had the sheer genius to give a flat dull speech full of the usual shopworn boilerplate. Brilliant! At a stroke, he not only gently lowered the expectations of those millions of Americans and billions around the world for whom his triumphant ascendancy is the only thing that gives their drab little lives any meaning, but also emphasized continuity by placing his unprecedented incandescent megastar cool squarely within the tradition of squaresville yawneroo white middle-aged plonking mediocrities who came before him.
At a stroke—okay, that’s two strokes, like an Italian moped, but that just shows how cosmopolitan he is—Obama artfully charted a middle course between the Scylla of unmeetable expectations and the Charybdis of his own charisma, and chugged instead in the placid rhetorical shallows of “gathering clouds,” “raging storms,” “icy currents.” In a speech on climate change, this would send the crowd fleeing in terror to hole up in the hills and forage for berries. But, in an inaugural address, this was Obama’s most inspired gambit yet. Only a truly great leader would have the courage to reach for the skies in such leaden and earthbound prose.
Oh, well. So much for the consensus of the expert analysts. Meanwhile, The New Yorker put him on the cover dressed as George Washington—a Founding Father for a new America! Disdaining such insulting and belittling comparisons to discredited old slaveowners with bad teeth and wigs even more obvious than that Illinois governor’s, the actress-activist Susan Sarandon compared him to Jesus. “He is a community organizer like Jesus was,” she said, “and now we’re a community and he can organize us.” What sort of community should we be? Surveying the “rapt eyes” of the congregation, Ethan Baron, writing in the Vancouver Province, said he hadn’t seen anything like it “since a guy I used to work with brought me to visit his weird sex cult in California.” And he meant it as a compliment.
But don’t worry, the sex isn’t gonna be weird or anything. “Oh, yes, yes, yessssssss, we can!” I whimpered, as his smoldering eyes bored deep into the very core of my being and our souls met and I knew he was the only man who would ever win my heart, a heart beating so fast and loud I could barely hear what he was saying—something about executive orders, I think. “Oh, yes, give me one right now!” I cried, as my palpitating bosom burst the ties of my bodice causing my leg to vibrate so much my bustle fell off.
“Aye, you’re a comely lass,” said Squire Barack, as my tresses tumbled over my stays and his riding crop fluttered teasingly up my thigh. “But I don’t need to go a-wenchin’ in the White House Press Room.”
“No, please, good sir,” I begged, as he glided past me and gave a saucy wink to the chamber maid from the Washington Post.
Sorry, my mind wandered for a minute. Where was I?
Ah, yes. Government. Kind of boring, isn’t it? Who’s the defense secretary? Yawn. Who cares as long as it isn’t Bush’s guy? What’s that? It is Bush’s guy? Obama’s kept him on?
Heigh-ho. Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter that the new CIA honcho is open-minded on the virtues of waterboarding. Doesn’t matter that the new treasury secretary who’s gonna stick it to those greedy fat cats who don’t pay their fair share of taxes is a greedy fat cat who didn’t pay his fair share of taxes. If one night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble, one night in D.C. makes a cool man boring. But it doesn’t matter, because Obama’s so cool even his boringness is hot.
To mark the inauguration, Ashton Kutcher released a video pledge-a-thon in which various bigtime celebrities, two or three of whom you might even recognize, “pledge to be a servant to our president and to all mankind because together we can, together we are, and together we will be the change that we seek.” No doubt it sounds better when Jessica Simpson, Céline Dion, and Whitney Houston are bellowing it as an all-star power ballad. It was when the celebrity O-bots start fleshing out the program that it all gets more problematic: One celeb pledges to buy a hybrid. Another pledges to flush the toilet only after a, er—well, let’s not get into that. And most of the rest just pledge to support programs to “emphasize the importance of raising the awareness of finding mentors to promote voices to speak out for arts education mentoring in our schools” (as the blogger Iowahawk paraphrased it). It’s all very back-to-the-Nineties, a time when Bill Clinton declared that the era of Big Government was over and we seemed on the brink of a golden era of a billion gazillion bits of tiny itsy-bitsy micro-government that cumulatively add up to the biggest government you’ve ever seen.
And if this were 1993 again, that just might do. But it’s not, and perhaps the silliest part of the new president’s speech was this: “On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.”
Sounds nice, doesn’t it? Put aside the bitter partisanship, so “childish” and “petty,” and we can all be grown up about this and do the things that need to be done. The idea of a politics conducted within less ideological and more technocratic bounds is seductive. It’s how things work in much of Europe: You have a choice between a left-of-center candidate and an ever so slightly right-of-left-of-center candidate, and, regardless of which one you plump for, you wind up with the same old smidgeonette right-of-left-of-right-of-left-of-center government. The result has been to deliver a society of permanent high unemployment, unaffordable entitlements, and deathbed demographics—even before the economic downturn put more immediate question marks over the future. As Obama was inaugurated, rioters were besieging their parliaments in Iceland, Latvia, and Bulgaria, the beginnings of a civil unrest that will spread inward from the fringes of the European map. Unlike Ashton Kutcher, these people are not worried about arts-education mentoring.
Ideas are the energy in politics, and on health care, Social Security, war, immigration, and much else this country could use more. Instead, the moribund U.S. media—a very good example of what happens when stultifying conformity becomes your be all and end all—are urging us to fall in line: “Just days after taking office vowing to end the political era of ‘petty grievances,’” reported the Washington Post, “President Obama ran into mounting GOP opposition yesterday to an economic stimulus plan that he had hoped would receive broad bipartisan support.”
Ah, yes. How “petty” these losers are to have concerns about a trillion bucks in spending. Fortunately, Obama will stay cool, though hopefully not in the Icelandic sense.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Collapse of the Left-Wing Media
Bill O'Reilly
Saturday, January 24, 2009
There is much irony in the fact that while liberals have won power in Washington big time, left-wing media are collapsing all over the place. In the last couple of weeks, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the mother of all liberal publications, The New York Times, each has issued SOS announcements.
The Seattle paper will cease publication in March unless a buyer is found. Even though it can't pay its bills, the Post-Intelligencer should have been inducted into the left-wing hall of fame after its publisher told the FBI to buzz off when the agency asked for media help in locating two possible terror suspects.
The Minneapolis paper, dubbed the Red Star by some in Minnesota, filed for bankruptcy after its earnings dropped more than 50 percent in one year. That despite the presidential vote and a vicious election between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
As for The New York Times: It is Twilight Zone time. The paper was already trying to use equity in its Manhattan office building to pay debts, and now has borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. And get this: The Times is paying old Carlos an astounding 14 percent interest. What, was Tony Soprano not available? Does the description "loan shark" mean anything to the ideologues running the Times? The prime lending rate in America is 3.25 percent, and these guys are paying Carlos Slim 14 percent. Wow.
On the TV front, the uber-liberal, Bush-hating MSNBC network ranked 31 in total day ratings for the first two weeks of January. I think that's right behind the "Roller Derby Channel." General Electric, which owns NBC, has taken a sharp turn to the left in its corporate philosophy and, at the same time, is watching its stock price decline from about $50 a share to around $13. The fact that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt still has his job ranks up there with the miracle of the U.S. Airways water landing.
Why are the liberal media taking a pounding when the left now controls Congress and the Oval Office? It may be because of the economy. After the recession blindsided the folks last fall, anger filled the air. Why weren't we warned that the financial industry was awash in bad housing loans? President Bush and Sen. John McCain had no answer. So the folks voted for the Democrats.
But that doesn't mean the American people became liberals overnight. In fact, some folks became even more conservative with their spending and lifestyles. The images of left-wing media people gloating over the failure of the Bush administration did not cheer many people up. In fact, I believe it teed a lot of them off.
Despite the power shift in Washington, America remains a traditional country that largely rejects big government and radical social change. The former hippies running the crazy-left media will never get that. They believe most Americans want gay marriage, political correctness and unfettered abortion. They believe everyday folks think ponytails and pierced ears on old guys are cool.
Well, these Abbie Hoffman wannabes are sadly out of touch. And soon, maybe out of work.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
There is much irony in the fact that while liberals have won power in Washington big time, left-wing media are collapsing all over the place. In the last couple of weeks, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the mother of all liberal publications, The New York Times, each has issued SOS announcements.
The Seattle paper will cease publication in March unless a buyer is found. Even though it can't pay its bills, the Post-Intelligencer should have been inducted into the left-wing hall of fame after its publisher told the FBI to buzz off when the agency asked for media help in locating two possible terror suspects.
The Minneapolis paper, dubbed the Red Star by some in Minnesota, filed for bankruptcy after its earnings dropped more than 50 percent in one year. That despite the presidential vote and a vicious election between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
As for The New York Times: It is Twilight Zone time. The paper was already trying to use equity in its Manhattan office building to pay debts, and now has borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. And get this: The Times is paying old Carlos an astounding 14 percent interest. What, was Tony Soprano not available? Does the description "loan shark" mean anything to the ideologues running the Times? The prime lending rate in America is 3.25 percent, and these guys are paying Carlos Slim 14 percent. Wow.
On the TV front, the uber-liberal, Bush-hating MSNBC network ranked 31 in total day ratings for the first two weeks of January. I think that's right behind the "Roller Derby Channel." General Electric, which owns NBC, has taken a sharp turn to the left in its corporate philosophy and, at the same time, is watching its stock price decline from about $50 a share to around $13. The fact that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt still has his job ranks up there with the miracle of the U.S. Airways water landing.
Why are the liberal media taking a pounding when the left now controls Congress and the Oval Office? It may be because of the economy. After the recession blindsided the folks last fall, anger filled the air. Why weren't we warned that the financial industry was awash in bad housing loans? President Bush and Sen. John McCain had no answer. So the folks voted for the Democrats.
But that doesn't mean the American people became liberals overnight. In fact, some folks became even more conservative with their spending and lifestyles. The images of left-wing media people gloating over the failure of the Bush administration did not cheer many people up. In fact, I believe it teed a lot of them off.
Despite the power shift in Washington, America remains a traditional country that largely rejects big government and radical social change. The former hippies running the crazy-left media will never get that. They believe most Americans want gay marriage, political correctness and unfettered abortion. They believe everyday folks think ponytails and pierced ears on old guys are cool.
Well, these Abbie Hoffman wannabes are sadly out of touch. And soon, maybe out of work.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Closing Guantanamo
Linda Chavez
Friday, January 23, 2009
President Obama is learning it is a lot easier to reverse unpopular positions of his predecessor than it is to come up with better ones of his own. On Thursday, he signed executive orders aimed at shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, which houses some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. His orders also restricted interrogation methods that can be used by the CIA to elicit information from suspects and eliminated secret overseas detention facilities run by the CIA. Earlier, he suspended military commission hearings that were established to hear cases against those held at Guantanamo, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
Now he has to decide what to do with the 245 men held at Guantanamo. And, if he is lucky enough to see Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri captured on his watch, he'll have to decide what to do with them. Ensure they're read their Miranda rights and appointed taxpayer-funded legal counsel, perhaps?
It's no joke. The philosophical shift between treating accused terrorists captured on foreign soil as enemy combatants or simply heinous criminals is an important distinction. The Clinton administration dealt with those responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 as the latter. (In fairness, no one knew at the time that the perpetrators were involved in more than a criminal conspiracy.) But Mohammed Atta and his 18 fellow soldiers made sure we understood on Sept. 11, 2001, that their attacks were acts of war against the United States.
It is tempting to believe that the worst is over -- that we won't be hit again, maybe even harder than we were just eight years ago. Some Democrats are sure that nothing George W. Bush did made us safer, and many of them would argue Bush sacrificed important constitutional guarantees without gaining any measure of security. But I think it is highly implausible that pure luck has protected us. Waterboarding may be nasty business, but if the technique indeed forced KSM to reveal details in 2003 of planned attacks and thus saved lives -- as Bush officials have asserted -- is it responsible to say that there are no circumstances, ever, in which it might be used again? And would the Obama administration go further, as Attorney General nominee Eric Holder hinted in his confirmation hearings, and seek to prosecute those who ordered or carried out waterboarding?
So what will the Obama administration do with KSM and the others at Guantanamo? If the military commission established to try these men will no longer do so, will they be turned over to criminal courts in the U.S.? If so, it is likely that many would be acquitted on the basis of "tainted evidence" and lack of due process alone. Then what? Do we put them on airplanes and ship them home? Or will human rights groups protest that countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt might torture these men so we must not send them there? Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero has offered his support and help in closing Guantanamo to President Obama, but is he willing to take any of those prisoners deemed too dangerous to release and put them in Spanish jails?
In his inaugural address, President Obama promised "for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." But actions speak louder than words. We'll see if he means it. As President Obama no doubt has figured out, closing Guantanamo while preserving national security will take more than a stroke of the pen. He risks alienating the leftwing base of his party if the barbed wire doesn't come down immediately. But the stakes are much higher if he lets terrorists loose on the world.
Friday, January 23, 2009
President Obama is learning it is a lot easier to reverse unpopular positions of his predecessor than it is to come up with better ones of his own. On Thursday, he signed executive orders aimed at shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, which houses some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. His orders also restricted interrogation methods that can be used by the CIA to elicit information from suspects and eliminated secret overseas detention facilities run by the CIA. Earlier, he suspended military commission hearings that were established to hear cases against those held at Guantanamo, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
Now he has to decide what to do with the 245 men held at Guantanamo. And, if he is lucky enough to see Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri captured on his watch, he'll have to decide what to do with them. Ensure they're read their Miranda rights and appointed taxpayer-funded legal counsel, perhaps?
It's no joke. The philosophical shift between treating accused terrorists captured on foreign soil as enemy combatants or simply heinous criminals is an important distinction. The Clinton administration dealt with those responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 as the latter. (In fairness, no one knew at the time that the perpetrators were involved in more than a criminal conspiracy.) But Mohammed Atta and his 18 fellow soldiers made sure we understood on Sept. 11, 2001, that their attacks were acts of war against the United States.
It is tempting to believe that the worst is over -- that we won't be hit again, maybe even harder than we were just eight years ago. Some Democrats are sure that nothing George W. Bush did made us safer, and many of them would argue Bush sacrificed important constitutional guarantees without gaining any measure of security. But I think it is highly implausible that pure luck has protected us. Waterboarding may be nasty business, but if the technique indeed forced KSM to reveal details in 2003 of planned attacks and thus saved lives -- as Bush officials have asserted -- is it responsible to say that there are no circumstances, ever, in which it might be used again? And would the Obama administration go further, as Attorney General nominee Eric Holder hinted in his confirmation hearings, and seek to prosecute those who ordered or carried out waterboarding?
So what will the Obama administration do with KSM and the others at Guantanamo? If the military commission established to try these men will no longer do so, will they be turned over to criminal courts in the U.S.? If so, it is likely that many would be acquitted on the basis of "tainted evidence" and lack of due process alone. Then what? Do we put them on airplanes and ship them home? Or will human rights groups protest that countries like Saudi Arabia or Egypt might torture these men so we must not send them there? Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero has offered his support and help in closing Guantanamo to President Obama, but is he willing to take any of those prisoners deemed too dangerous to release and put them in Spanish jails?
In his inaugural address, President Obama promised "for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." But actions speak louder than words. We'll see if he means it. As President Obama no doubt has figured out, closing Guantanamo while preserving national security will take more than a stroke of the pen. He risks alienating the leftwing base of his party if the barbed wire doesn't come down immediately. But the stakes are much higher if he lets terrorists loose on the world.
A False Move on Gitmo
Obama’s lofty talk does nothing to resolve detainee situation.
National Review Online
Friday, January 23, 2009
The executive orders President Obama signed Thursday regarding the detention and interrogation of detainees in the War on Terror reflect an emerging Obama style: What is said is more rhetorical than illuminating—and what is most important is left unsaid.
Take Guantanamo Bay, the oft-maligned subject of the first order. In announcing the closure of the prison there, the president forcefully asserted that he was following through on a campaign commitment. But the order only promises that the facility will be closed within a year—a nonbinding deadline Obama could extend simply by signing another order. That’s not exactly the immediate shuttering his antiwar base was clamoring for, and such delay would be intolerable if Obama really believed Gitmo were the travesty he has portrayed it as.
Moreover, the physical facility itself is of only symbolic importance. The underlying question is what to do with the detainees held there. On that, the executive orders tell us precious little.
There are about 245 alien enemy combatants currently in detention. Of these, 21 have been formally accused of war crimes, charges that were to be tried by military commission under Bush policies codified by congressional statutes. With respect to these detainees, the executive orders accomplish exactly nothing.
The military commissions have already been suspended for four months (at Obama’s request, granted by the military court) to allow the new administration to study the system. As a candidate, Obama criticized commission trials for falling short on due-process guarantees, but in truth the governing procedures are rich with defendant protections, and the president has stopped short of explaining what he would do differently.
For now, the broader issue of detention is an area for study rather than action. Obama created a task force that will consider what to do with terrorists captured after Gitmo is closed. And in another show of symbolism over substance, the president directed the CIA to shut down any of the so-called black-site prisons that, with the cooperation of our allies throughout the world, the agency may have been using to hold and question high-level al-Qaeda captives. In reality, it is likely that any such prisoners were transferred to Gitmo long ago. Left unanswered are the salient questions of where the current detainees will be held once Gitmo closes; whether they will be tried and, if so, where; and whether a new system will be designed to adjudicate the legal validity of detention.
Refreshingly, President Obama acknowledges that we are “a nation at war”—a proposition disputed by many of his core supporters, who see Islamist terror as a mere law-enforcement challenge. As a candidate, he railed against indefinite detention and praised the Clinton-era approach of trying terrorists in civilian courts. Now responsible for national security, Obama has come around to the understanding that there are people who, though known to pose grave danger, cannot be tried because our intelligence is not usable in civilian court. So while his administration studies this conundrum, he will continue to hold those detainees indefinitely. And though he will burn up the diplomatic phone lines trying to repatriate them, Obama must realize that other countries are not tripping over themselves to take on the vexing problems he’d like to unload.
On interrogations, a new order instructs all American personnel, including intelligence agencies, to follow guidelines in the Army Field Manual, which proscribes "enhanced" questioning tactics that involve physical abuse, threats, and other forms of coercion. This is obviously a sop to the waterboarding demagogues, who continue to smear the Bush administration as systematic torturers. Again, there is less than meets the eye. Administration spokesmen anonymously concede that Obama could issue another order permitting unspecified enhanced tactics in special cases—and that elements of the intelligence community, mindful that al-Qaeda trains its operatives to resist interrogation, are pressing for exactly such license.
So to summarize: We’d love to close Guantanamo, but we can’t right now; we’d love to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo, but other countries don’t want them; we’d love to give every detainee a civilian trial, but we don’t have enough evidence; we’d love to release the detainees we can’t charge with crimes, but our intelligence tells us they’re dangerous, so doing so would be irresponsible; and we’d love to stick to the highly civilized, detainee-friendly interrogation practices approved by the Army Field Manual, but every now and then there may be an emergency when something more severe is warranted.
Underneath all the lofty rhetoric, we’re gratified to see that this is change George W. Bush could believe in.
National Review Online
Friday, January 23, 2009
The executive orders President Obama signed Thursday regarding the detention and interrogation of detainees in the War on Terror reflect an emerging Obama style: What is said is more rhetorical than illuminating—and what is most important is left unsaid.
Take Guantanamo Bay, the oft-maligned subject of the first order. In announcing the closure of the prison there, the president forcefully asserted that he was following through on a campaign commitment. But the order only promises that the facility will be closed within a year—a nonbinding deadline Obama could extend simply by signing another order. That’s not exactly the immediate shuttering his antiwar base was clamoring for, and such delay would be intolerable if Obama really believed Gitmo were the travesty he has portrayed it as.
Moreover, the physical facility itself is of only symbolic importance. The underlying question is what to do with the detainees held there. On that, the executive orders tell us precious little.
There are about 245 alien enemy combatants currently in detention. Of these, 21 have been formally accused of war crimes, charges that were to be tried by military commission under Bush policies codified by congressional statutes. With respect to these detainees, the executive orders accomplish exactly nothing.
The military commissions have already been suspended for four months (at Obama’s request, granted by the military court) to allow the new administration to study the system. As a candidate, Obama criticized commission trials for falling short on due-process guarantees, but in truth the governing procedures are rich with defendant protections, and the president has stopped short of explaining what he would do differently.
For now, the broader issue of detention is an area for study rather than action. Obama created a task force that will consider what to do with terrorists captured after Gitmo is closed. And in another show of symbolism over substance, the president directed the CIA to shut down any of the so-called black-site prisons that, with the cooperation of our allies throughout the world, the agency may have been using to hold and question high-level al-Qaeda captives. In reality, it is likely that any such prisoners were transferred to Gitmo long ago. Left unanswered are the salient questions of where the current detainees will be held once Gitmo closes; whether they will be tried and, if so, where; and whether a new system will be designed to adjudicate the legal validity of detention.
Refreshingly, President Obama acknowledges that we are “a nation at war”—a proposition disputed by many of his core supporters, who see Islamist terror as a mere law-enforcement challenge. As a candidate, he railed against indefinite detention and praised the Clinton-era approach of trying terrorists in civilian courts. Now responsible for national security, Obama has come around to the understanding that there are people who, though known to pose grave danger, cannot be tried because our intelligence is not usable in civilian court. So while his administration studies this conundrum, he will continue to hold those detainees indefinitely. And though he will burn up the diplomatic phone lines trying to repatriate them, Obama must realize that other countries are not tripping over themselves to take on the vexing problems he’d like to unload.
On interrogations, a new order instructs all American personnel, including intelligence agencies, to follow guidelines in the Army Field Manual, which proscribes "enhanced" questioning tactics that involve physical abuse, threats, and other forms of coercion. This is obviously a sop to the waterboarding demagogues, who continue to smear the Bush administration as systematic torturers. Again, there is less than meets the eye. Administration spokesmen anonymously concede that Obama could issue another order permitting unspecified enhanced tactics in special cases—and that elements of the intelligence community, mindful that al-Qaeda trains its operatives to resist interrogation, are pressing for exactly such license.
So to summarize: We’d love to close Guantanamo, but we can’t right now; we’d love to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo, but other countries don’t want them; we’d love to give every detainee a civilian trial, but we don’t have enough evidence; we’d love to release the detainees we can’t charge with crimes, but our intelligence tells us they’re dangerous, so doing so would be irresponsible; and we’d love to stick to the highly civilized, detainee-friendly interrogation practices approved by the Army Field Manual, but every now and then there may be an emergency when something more severe is warranted.
Underneath all the lofty rhetoric, we’re gratified to see that this is change George W. Bush could believe in.
Giving Up on Guantánamo
Obama’s plans to close it are a symbolic act that will encourage our enemies.
By James S. Robbins
Friday, January 23, 2009
President Obama has issued an executive order making good on his promise to close down America’s detainee facility at Guantánamo Bay, though not as rapidly as his supporters wanted. While activists will hail this as a major step towards dismantling the Bush administration’s wartime policies, the Guantánamo they object to exists more as reputation than reality. To many, the name Guantánamo screams “No Due Process!” “Torture!” and “War Crimes!” But Camp Delta is the most humane facility of its type in the history of warfare.
The detainees are given immaculately clean clothes and living spaces. Their meals are balanced, nutritious, and halal—detainees weigh more upon release than upon arrival. They receive the same medical care as our service personnel. And the inmates’ religious practices are given great deference, to the point where it works counter to the mission of the facility. To the terrorists, Islam is more ideology than faith; it’s an operational code and methodology for promoting cohesion and radical identity. From this standpoint, giving al-Qaeda members copies of the Koran could have the same results as giving Nazi POWs a copy of Mein Kampf. Our indulgent policy in this regard has actively bolstered the terrorists’ morale, group solidarity, and ability to resist the legitimate intelligence objectives of the entire enterprise. We knew that it would, but we have let them practice their religion nonetheless.
Stand that against some of the invidious comparisons of the last few years, such as “The American Gulag.” Somewhere in heaven Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is chuckling with a wry smile at the members of the useful-idiot Western intelligentsia who came up with that one. The absurdity—and obscenity—of the comparison is obvious to anyone with even the most limited knowledge of the two institutions. The fact that such charges make effective propaganda is mostly a testament to the propensity of the media to reflexively grasp at the sensational, and of partisan politicians to stoke unwarranted outrage for political gain. The same is true of comparisons to Nazi concentration camps, where inmates tended not to find the kosher option.
But if the objections to Guantánamo have to do with the practices there, what is the point in closing it? It would be easier simply to change the objectionable policies and keep using Camp Delta. The president could institute whatever safeguards he thinks are required for due process and move ahead from there. After all, a facility is needed somewhere. Closing Guantánamo just so Obama can say he closed it amounts to mere chest beating. (See also Andrew McCarthy’s NRO article on the politics behind the closure.)
As a highly secure facility far removed from the U.S., Guantánamo is well suited for its purpose. The reason the detainee facility was put there dates back to a Clinton-era decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, Cuban American Bar Association v. Christopher (1995), Janet Reno’s Justice Department successfully argued that Cuban and Haitian refugees detained at Guantánamo had no constitutional rights or rights under international treaties because, while the area was under U.S. “jurisdiction and control,” it was not sovereign territory. This legal limbo made the location ideal for Global War on Terror detainees because they would not be able to assert habeas corpus or other due-process rights, and thus would not be able to use the U.S. court system as a new arena to pursue their struggle. This rationale was struck down in substance by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush (2008).
Suppose the facility is closed. How to “dispose of” (to use the language of Obama’s executive order) the approximately 250 inmates? They can’t just be cut loose. Most of the detainees who could safely have been released already have been, along with at least five dozen genuine terrorists who went right back to terrorism. Those who remain at Guantánamo are there for a reason. Some have been cleared for release but are being kept in custody instead of returning them to home countries where the debate over what constitutes torture is a little less rarefied. Prisoners in these countries are subject to beatings, dismemberment, electrocution, pulling out of teeth and fingernails, forced starvation, unsanitary conditions, and roving feral animals—things notably missing from the Bush administration’s “torture memos.”
Suppose we decide to move the inmates. To where? Foreign countries might take them, though whether the standard treatment for prisoners in those locales matches that at Camp Delta is open to question, particularly in the developing world. Then there is Pennsylvania. Rep. Jack Murtha’s offhand statement that "they’re no more dangerous in my district than in Guantánamo" is wrong in several ways. First, escaped terrorists (or their would-be rescuers) would harm a lot more Americans in Pennsylvania than they would in Cuba. Second, the detention facility at Guantánamo lies within a tightly guarded 45-square-mile naval base that would be virtually impossible to duplicate in Murtha’s district. And third, Guantánamo’s coastal location makes it easier to defend than it would be in the middle of the Alleghenies.
Perhaps Murtha’s constituents are less sanguine about the bull’s-eye he wants to paint on them. But wherever the detainees are moved (at great cost), they will constitute a heightened security risk, and legal avenues will be opened up for them to tie up the court system for years. Their trials will be extensive, complex, and far beyond what even the Supreme Court has defined as due process, and could well pose the government a difficult choice between revealing classified evidence and freeing terrorists.
So in President Obama’s executive order we have a wholly symbolic act that implicitly, if not explicitly, seems to confirm the worst of the undeserved criticisms leveled at the United States. It is domestic political grandstanding, and a present to the terrorists and their sympathizers, who can claim victory over the United States and its “torture camp.” It will impose unnecessary financial and legal burdens on the United States and create a permanent security problem wherever the detainees end up. It makes one wonder if the new White House team has the seriousness of purpose to prosecute the war on terrorism successfully.
By James S. Robbins
Friday, January 23, 2009
President Obama has issued an executive order making good on his promise to close down America’s detainee facility at Guantánamo Bay, though not as rapidly as his supporters wanted. While activists will hail this as a major step towards dismantling the Bush administration’s wartime policies, the Guantánamo they object to exists more as reputation than reality. To many, the name Guantánamo screams “No Due Process!” “Torture!” and “War Crimes!” But Camp Delta is the most humane facility of its type in the history of warfare.
The detainees are given immaculately clean clothes and living spaces. Their meals are balanced, nutritious, and halal—detainees weigh more upon release than upon arrival. They receive the same medical care as our service personnel. And the inmates’ religious practices are given great deference, to the point where it works counter to the mission of the facility. To the terrorists, Islam is more ideology than faith; it’s an operational code and methodology for promoting cohesion and radical identity. From this standpoint, giving al-Qaeda members copies of the Koran could have the same results as giving Nazi POWs a copy of Mein Kampf. Our indulgent policy in this regard has actively bolstered the terrorists’ morale, group solidarity, and ability to resist the legitimate intelligence objectives of the entire enterprise. We knew that it would, but we have let them practice their religion nonetheless.
Stand that against some of the invidious comparisons of the last few years, such as “The American Gulag.” Somewhere in heaven Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is chuckling with a wry smile at the members of the useful-idiot Western intelligentsia who came up with that one. The absurdity—and obscenity—of the comparison is obvious to anyone with even the most limited knowledge of the two institutions. The fact that such charges make effective propaganda is mostly a testament to the propensity of the media to reflexively grasp at the sensational, and of partisan politicians to stoke unwarranted outrage for political gain. The same is true of comparisons to Nazi concentration camps, where inmates tended not to find the kosher option.
But if the objections to Guantánamo have to do with the practices there, what is the point in closing it? It would be easier simply to change the objectionable policies and keep using Camp Delta. The president could institute whatever safeguards he thinks are required for due process and move ahead from there. After all, a facility is needed somewhere. Closing Guantánamo just so Obama can say he closed it amounts to mere chest beating. (See also Andrew McCarthy’s NRO article on the politics behind the closure.)
As a highly secure facility far removed from the U.S., Guantánamo is well suited for its purpose. The reason the detainee facility was put there dates back to a Clinton-era decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, Cuban American Bar Association v. Christopher (1995), Janet Reno’s Justice Department successfully argued that Cuban and Haitian refugees detained at Guantánamo had no constitutional rights or rights under international treaties because, while the area was under U.S. “jurisdiction and control,” it was not sovereign territory. This legal limbo made the location ideal for Global War on Terror detainees because they would not be able to assert habeas corpus or other due-process rights, and thus would not be able to use the U.S. court system as a new arena to pursue their struggle. This rationale was struck down in substance by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush (2008).
Suppose the facility is closed. How to “dispose of” (to use the language of Obama’s executive order) the approximately 250 inmates? They can’t just be cut loose. Most of the detainees who could safely have been released already have been, along with at least five dozen genuine terrorists who went right back to terrorism. Those who remain at Guantánamo are there for a reason. Some have been cleared for release but are being kept in custody instead of returning them to home countries where the debate over what constitutes torture is a little less rarefied. Prisoners in these countries are subject to beatings, dismemberment, electrocution, pulling out of teeth and fingernails, forced starvation, unsanitary conditions, and roving feral animals—things notably missing from the Bush administration’s “torture memos.”
Suppose we decide to move the inmates. To where? Foreign countries might take them, though whether the standard treatment for prisoners in those locales matches that at Camp Delta is open to question, particularly in the developing world. Then there is Pennsylvania. Rep. Jack Murtha’s offhand statement that "they’re no more dangerous in my district than in Guantánamo" is wrong in several ways. First, escaped terrorists (or their would-be rescuers) would harm a lot more Americans in Pennsylvania than they would in Cuba. Second, the detention facility at Guantánamo lies within a tightly guarded 45-square-mile naval base that would be virtually impossible to duplicate in Murtha’s district. And third, Guantánamo’s coastal location makes it easier to defend than it would be in the middle of the Alleghenies.
Perhaps Murtha’s constituents are less sanguine about the bull’s-eye he wants to paint on them. But wherever the detainees are moved (at great cost), they will constitute a heightened security risk, and legal avenues will be opened up for them to tie up the court system for years. Their trials will be extensive, complex, and far beyond what even the Supreme Court has defined as due process, and could well pose the government a difficult choice between revealing classified evidence and freeing terrorists.
So in President Obama’s executive order we have a wholly symbolic act that implicitly, if not explicitly, seems to confirm the worst of the undeserved criticisms leveled at the United States. It is domestic political grandstanding, and a present to the terrorists and their sympathizers, who can claim victory over the United States and its “torture camp.” It will impose unnecessary financial and legal burdens on the United States and create a permanent security problem wherever the detainees end up. It makes one wonder if the new White House team has the seriousness of purpose to prosecute the war on terrorism successfully.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Winning Back College Campuses
Karin Agness
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Obama Campaign dominated college campuses this fall. There is no way around that. At my own campus, the University of Virginia, seeing Obama paraphernalia on my way to class became as common as seeing North Face fleeces. Thus, it was no surprise that voters under the age of 30 voted for Barack Obama 2 to 1. The youth voter turnout increased one percentage point to 18% from the 2004 presidential election.
But the youth vote is not a lost cause for conservatives. Ronald Reagan won it in 1984 and a conservative candidate can win it again. College campuses are a major battleground in the war of ideas and this election shows that conservatives on campus must become more effective in conveying their ideas. Countless stories have been written about how the Obama Campaign successfully used new technology to reach students who might not normally be interested in politics. Text messages, Facebook groups and Twitter diaries became successful political tools during this election cycle. Conservative students should embrace this new technology, but they should not ignore the importance of good messaging, sound policy and picking their battles. From my experience of four years of college and almost three years of law school at the University of Virginia, here are five ways that conservative students can become more effective on campus.
1. Build relationships with the school newspaper.
Conservatives should keep in mind the old Mark Twain adage, "Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel." Despite new technology, school newspapers still play an important role. School newspapers on large campuses are printed five days a week and are often the main daily source of information for college students. Many conservatives have started their own newspapers or magazines, but these usually are weekly, monthly or even quarterly publications. Regardless of if there is an alternative conservative paper or not, conservatives should develop relationships with the school newspaper and encourage other conservatives to join. This will likely lead to better balanced stories and more coverage of conservative events, which will help conservatives spread their ideas more broadly.
2. Co-sponsor debates with the opposition.
Hosting an articulate conservative speaker can reenergize the conservative movement on a college campus. Yet these speakers often only reach supporters as opponents do not attend. To become more effective, conservatives should co-sponsor debates with their opposition. By doing so, conservatives will have the opportunity to reach a wider diversity of students, including those who usually disagree with them, and possibly gain more supporters.
3. Address more parochial college issues.
Conservative students should pick issues directly affecting college campuses and work tirelessly on them. While students can add something to the debate on nuclear nonproliferation, international crime and the War in Iraq, most students are obviously not experts on these issues. Students are experts, however, on issues affecting college campuses. Students know how university policies can have impact upon their educational experience. Many conservative students have won arguments on speech codes, university funding of only liberal speakers and proposed new curriculum.
4. Recruit and support conservative candidates at every level.
Who controls how student activity fees are distributed on college campuses? Often, it is a student elected to a position such as Vice President for Organizations. This person decides how much funding the University Democrats and College Republicans receive each year. Among others, student officers often make decisions about office allocation, what clubs to recognize and what speakers to host. Just as students should address university issues, they also should run candidates for these student positions.
5. Take responsibility for a conservative education.
Rather than just complain about the lack of classic conservative books in university curriculum, conservatives should read them on their own time and find others with whom to discuss these books. Students must educate themselves on conservatism to effectively educate others. Ultimately, and as always, conservative success rests on ideas--not slogans.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Obama Campaign dominated college campuses this fall. There is no way around that. At my own campus, the University of Virginia, seeing Obama paraphernalia on my way to class became as common as seeing North Face fleeces. Thus, it was no surprise that voters under the age of 30 voted for Barack Obama 2 to 1. The youth voter turnout increased one percentage point to 18% from the 2004 presidential election.
But the youth vote is not a lost cause for conservatives. Ronald Reagan won it in 1984 and a conservative candidate can win it again. College campuses are a major battleground in the war of ideas and this election shows that conservatives on campus must become more effective in conveying their ideas. Countless stories have been written about how the Obama Campaign successfully used new technology to reach students who might not normally be interested in politics. Text messages, Facebook groups and Twitter diaries became successful political tools during this election cycle. Conservative students should embrace this new technology, but they should not ignore the importance of good messaging, sound policy and picking their battles. From my experience of four years of college and almost three years of law school at the University of Virginia, here are five ways that conservative students can become more effective on campus.
1. Build relationships with the school newspaper.
Conservatives should keep in mind the old Mark Twain adage, "Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel." Despite new technology, school newspapers still play an important role. School newspapers on large campuses are printed five days a week and are often the main daily source of information for college students. Many conservatives have started their own newspapers or magazines, but these usually are weekly, monthly or even quarterly publications. Regardless of if there is an alternative conservative paper or not, conservatives should develop relationships with the school newspaper and encourage other conservatives to join. This will likely lead to better balanced stories and more coverage of conservative events, which will help conservatives spread their ideas more broadly.
2. Co-sponsor debates with the opposition.
Hosting an articulate conservative speaker can reenergize the conservative movement on a college campus. Yet these speakers often only reach supporters as opponents do not attend. To become more effective, conservatives should co-sponsor debates with their opposition. By doing so, conservatives will have the opportunity to reach a wider diversity of students, including those who usually disagree with them, and possibly gain more supporters.
3. Address more parochial college issues.
Conservative students should pick issues directly affecting college campuses and work tirelessly on them. While students can add something to the debate on nuclear nonproliferation, international crime and the War in Iraq, most students are obviously not experts on these issues. Students are experts, however, on issues affecting college campuses. Students know how university policies can have impact upon their educational experience. Many conservative students have won arguments on speech codes, university funding of only liberal speakers and proposed new curriculum.
4. Recruit and support conservative candidates at every level.
Who controls how student activity fees are distributed on college campuses? Often, it is a student elected to a position such as Vice President for Organizations. This person decides how much funding the University Democrats and College Republicans receive each year. Among others, student officers often make decisions about office allocation, what clubs to recognize and what speakers to host. Just as students should address university issues, they also should run candidates for these student positions.
5. Take responsibility for a conservative education.
Rather than just complain about the lack of classic conservative books in university curriculum, conservatives should read them on their own time and find others with whom to discuss these books. Students must educate themselves on conservatism to effectively educate others. Ultimately, and as always, conservative success rests on ideas--not slogans.
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Brett Joshpe
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I have pledged to give President Barack Obama a fair chance, and I do not want to be that guy who criticizes everything the new President does, especially in light of the unfair treatment those on the Left showed towards former President Bush. At the same time, I cannot, in good conscience, let certain things go unanswered, especially when rhetoric so clearly contradicts reality. With that being said, am I missing something here?
After digesting our new President’s inauguration speech for a full 24 hours, I am still struck by several remarks. The first is President Obama’s call for a “new era of responsibility” and “hard-work.” I applaud and second Obama’s suggestions. However, I would query how $50 billion in foreclosure relief fosters the notion of personal responsibility. How does a stimulus package that will likely exceed $800 billion—coupled with hundreds-of-billions of dollars of additional Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) spending and automobile bailout funds—foster responsibility or sacrifice? How does record spending and record deficits that will leave our children with massive debt not constitute another form of “putting off unpleasant decisions” and “hard choices”?
Second, Obama tried to preempt any questions about the government’s size, saying “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small but whether it works.” In that case, the answer is no. Government has let Americans down in more ways than we can imagine, starting with its support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which helped to cause the current financial crisis. However, government is, in fact, too big, and we do ourselves no favors not to acknowledge it. There are scores of regulatory agencies that exist simply to enforce rules, and regulations cost the economy close to $1 trillion per year. The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports showed that the combined unfunded liability of these two programs is over $100 trillion in today’s dollars. Government is most certainly too big.
Last, in the realm of fighting terror and America’s foreign policy, Obama most memorably declared that “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” That sentiment sounds nice in theory, but it is far too simplistic—a criticism the Left hurled constantly at George W. Bush for breaking down the world into good and evil. The reality is that George W. Bush balanced (and balanced well) our twin goals of safety and democratic ideals. It is a balance that great presidents have been forced to undertake prior to Bush.
Abraham Lincoln, who Obama holds as a historical model, declared martial law and suspended the constitutionally protected writ of habeas corpus for American citizens during the Civil War. He also defied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex parte Merryman, which ruled the suspension of the writ unconstitutional. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic President who many compare to Obama, also suspended the writ of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants captured in the U.S. during World War II, as well as ordered the internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans.
President Bush’s so-called choice of safety over principal pales in comparison to the decisions Lincoln and Roosevelt made. And Lincoln and Roosevelt made those decisions not because they did not understand the American ideals for which we strive but because the exigencies of the situation—and the safety of the nation—required some difficult trade-offs at the time.
Obama’s inauguration was appropriately sober, yet hopeful—a tribute to the man and his power to inspire. However, hope and inspiration alone will not make America a better, stronger, more economically productive nation. Those goals will require policies that truly reflect the aspirations about which Obama speaks, including responsibility, sacrifice, hard-work, courage and freedom. I am uncertain, however, that Obama’s plans will live up to those ambitions. I only hope that Americans have the clarity to witness and judge the next several years on the merits. After all, if the Emperor is not wearing any clothes, someone needs to say so.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I have pledged to give President Barack Obama a fair chance, and I do not want to be that guy who criticizes everything the new President does, especially in light of the unfair treatment those on the Left showed towards former President Bush. At the same time, I cannot, in good conscience, let certain things go unanswered, especially when rhetoric so clearly contradicts reality. With that being said, am I missing something here?
After digesting our new President’s inauguration speech for a full 24 hours, I am still struck by several remarks. The first is President Obama’s call for a “new era of responsibility” and “hard-work.” I applaud and second Obama’s suggestions. However, I would query how $50 billion in foreclosure relief fosters the notion of personal responsibility. How does a stimulus package that will likely exceed $800 billion—coupled with hundreds-of-billions of dollars of additional Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) spending and automobile bailout funds—foster responsibility or sacrifice? How does record spending and record deficits that will leave our children with massive debt not constitute another form of “putting off unpleasant decisions” and “hard choices”?
Second, Obama tried to preempt any questions about the government’s size, saying “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small but whether it works.” In that case, the answer is no. Government has let Americans down in more ways than we can imagine, starting with its support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which helped to cause the current financial crisis. However, government is, in fact, too big, and we do ourselves no favors not to acknowledge it. There are scores of regulatory agencies that exist simply to enforce rules, and regulations cost the economy close to $1 trillion per year. The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports showed that the combined unfunded liability of these two programs is over $100 trillion in today’s dollars. Government is most certainly too big.
Last, in the realm of fighting terror and America’s foreign policy, Obama most memorably declared that “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” That sentiment sounds nice in theory, but it is far too simplistic—a criticism the Left hurled constantly at George W. Bush for breaking down the world into good and evil. The reality is that George W. Bush balanced (and balanced well) our twin goals of safety and democratic ideals. It is a balance that great presidents have been forced to undertake prior to Bush.
Abraham Lincoln, who Obama holds as a historical model, declared martial law and suspended the constitutionally protected writ of habeas corpus for American citizens during the Civil War. He also defied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex parte Merryman, which ruled the suspension of the writ unconstitutional. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democratic President who many compare to Obama, also suspended the writ of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants captured in the U.S. during World War II, as well as ordered the internment of thousands of Japanese-Americans.
President Bush’s so-called choice of safety over principal pales in comparison to the decisions Lincoln and Roosevelt made. And Lincoln and Roosevelt made those decisions not because they did not understand the American ideals for which we strive but because the exigencies of the situation—and the safety of the nation—required some difficult trade-offs at the time.
Obama’s inauguration was appropriately sober, yet hopeful—a tribute to the man and his power to inspire. However, hope and inspiration alone will not make America a better, stronger, more economically productive nation. Those goals will require policies that truly reflect the aspirations about which Obama speaks, including responsibility, sacrifice, hard-work, courage and freedom. I am uncertain, however, that Obama’s plans will live up to those ambitions. I only hope that Americans have the clarity to witness and judge the next several years on the merits. After all, if the Emperor is not wearing any clothes, someone needs to say so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)