BCT Editorial – 1/15/09

This page was last updated on January 17, 2009.

Too late?; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 15, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Decision to close Guantanamo prison is long overdue.”

The primary source for this article appears to be “Obama to sign order next week to close Guantanamo prison” (Jonathan S. Landay; McClatchy Newspapers; January 12, 2009).

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President-elect Barack Obama’s promise to close the penal colony at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba will go a long way toward restoring America’s prestige as a beacon of human rights.”

[RWC] “[P]enal colony?”

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.” Who said it? The answer is at the end of this critique.

“McClatchy Newspapers reported that two individuals familiar with Obama’s thinking said he will sign an executive order in his first week in office that sets in motion the closing of the facility. It won’t happen overnight. The process is likely to take a considerable amount of time.”

[RWC] “It won’t happen overnight. The process is likely to take a considerable amount of time.” Translation: The Times likely won’t hold Mr. Obama’s feet to the fire about actually closing the prison at Gitmo. All that’s important is signing “an executive order.”

“The decision to use a military prison at Guantanamo Bay to house al-Qaida and Taliban militants following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 raised constitutional, diplomatic and human rights questions from the beginning.”

[RWC] Why? Where did we hold prisoners during World War II, the Korean Way, and the Vietnam War? We held them in foreign countries. Actually, that’s only partially true. Combatants caught not wearing uniforms, as is the practice of terrorists, were not held; they were shot as spies.

“First, many prisoners shipped to the prison were not high-profile members of the Taliban or al-Qaida. Far too many were grunts who were of little or no importance.”

[RWC] First, so now the Times has expertise in determining who “were grunts who were of little or no importance?” Second, even if that were true, was it known at the time of capture and original imprisonment? Third, who cares? Prisoners need to be held somewhere until we can determine what to do with them, right? Perhaps we should let them go on bail.

“The administration created the prison without thinking through the consequences. As a result (and in addition to the innocents who already have been released), about 60 detainees have been cleared for release, but their governments have refused to accept them. In other instances, governments are refusing to imprison detainees when it is a condition for their repatriation.”

[RWC] “The administration created the prison without thinking through the consequences.” Exactly what were we supposed to do with prisoners while we were “thinking through the consequences?” Can you imagine the editorials we’d have read had these prisoners been brought back to U.S. prisons?

While the Times is rightfully concerned about “the innocents” who were picked up (This will always happen during war unless you take no prisoners.), the editorial fails to mention that about 11% of those released committed more terrorist acts and/or were picked up again on the battlefield.

“[T]heir governments have refused to accept … about 60 detainees [who] have been cleared for release.” Hmm, why would that be? Could it be THEY’RE TERRORISTS OR OTHERWISE VERY BAD PEOPLE?!

“Second, the prison site clearly was picked because it was beyond the reach of federal courts, which meant the Bush administration could do just about anything it wanted with the prisoners, including the use of interrogation techniques —water boarding, for one — that amounted to torture under U.S. and international law.”

[RWC] Gitmo couldn’t have been chosen because it’s nowhere near U.S. population centers, could it? All of the treatment issues can be addressed regardless of where they are imprisoned so that opposition to Gitmo is bogus. Whether or not it’s likely, if a terrorist escapes or if some terrorist group wants to stage an escape, I’d prefer it be from a military installation nowhere near the U.S.

“Third, the administration vastly underestimated how the prison and the interrogation techniques used there would stain America’s image around the world.”

[RWC] What BS!

“Fourth, the military tribunals that were created to try the accused terrorists were legally dubious and diplomatically disastrous. McClatchy reported even the military’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps has condemned the tribunals, charging that their rules, which admit evidence obtained through coercion, violate U.S. civil and military legal principles.”

[RWC] Unlike the Times, I’m not a legal expert. That said, my research indicates the U.S. has always used military tribunals during war when trying combatants.

“Obama is not alone in wanting to close the prison. The news service reported President Bush and some of his senior aides, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, now support closing the facility.”

[RWC] Does anyone at the Times keep up with current events? I ask because the editorial makes it sound like President Bush wanting to close the Gitmo prison is a recent development. Though I disagree with President Bush on this point, he said over two years ago he wanted to close the prison at Gitmo. Perhaps it’s only news when printed by the Times.

“Unfortunately, they’re about seven years too late.”

[RWC] Now for the answer to the question I asked at the beginning of this critique. No, it was not President Bush or VP Cheney. The person I quoted was Barack Obama. Mr. Obama made this comment during his January 11, 2009, interview on “This Week with George Stephanopoulus.” Most of this quote was in the story the Times used as its primary source for this editorial. Funny how that comment didn’t get mentioned, isn’t it?