Reports: Obama Sees Closing Gitmo As Top Priority, But Huge Hurdles Remain
A pair of must-reads this morning do a nice job of laying out one of Obama's top transition priorities, and the huge challenges inherent in getting it done: The closing of Guantanamo Bay.
First, Time magazine has a solid and detailed report explaining that there's a serious thicket of logistical challenges that stand in the way of implementing this particular campaign promise. "There's little doubt that the Guantánamo problem Bush leaves behind for Obama will be one of the hardest the President-elect will face when he finally sits in the Oval Office," Time opines.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Obama's advisers are keenly aware of the political imperatives of getting this done. "Announcing the closure of the controversial detention facility would be among the most potent signals the incoming administration could send of its sharp break with the Bush era," WaPo says.
Indeed. It's worth repeating a somewhat-neglected aspect of the campaign: Obama's big win also represented a resounding victory for Obama's foreign policy vision over the militarism, jingoism, and faux-patriotism of the GOP and McCain. Though the campaign's relentless focus on the economy has obscured this aspect of Obama's win, a new AP poll shows that the public strongly supports Obama's foreign policy goals and expects action on them.
Closing Gitmo could send a strong signal that Obama's commitment to changing the way national security is approached in this country, and with that, America's posture towards the rest of the world, hasn't diminished one bit.
Yeah, and it's also going to bring hysterical screams of terrorist appeasing from the mouth-breathers on the right. Not saying this isn't a fight he should take. It absolutely is. But it's not going to come without spending some capital.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
November 12, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes, will be huge fight.
November 12, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
its not just a fight he should take but he must take, closing gitmo is not only a sign to Americans that we are going to change but more importantly closing gitmo quickly will be a big step in improving international relationships.
November 12, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know the case is about closing GITMO will 'improve international relations', but I consider that ancillary. The point is that we behave like Americans.
November 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where Obama's ability to talk to the nation is such an asset. I am sure he will do his upmost to make the case, to explain exactly what is happening, why, and what are the consequences of do it (and to not do it).
November 12, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
from what i have read, the transition time and a slew of informal advisors (like Laurence Tribe, who wrote my constitutional law case book in law school) are already weighing the alternatives.
this will happen.
November 12, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
ooops...transition "team"....lol...
November 12, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Lieberman's oft-stated opposition to closing the confinement facility at Guantanamo Bay, his continued support of torture as a means of 'protecting' Americans and his cheerleading for the lawless, almost laughable military tribunal process:
Just three more reasons that Lieberman should have NOTHING to do with Homeland Security, foreign policy or military issues for the remainder of his Senate career!
November 12, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not just hand them all over to the Hague? Set it up like the Nuremberg Trials so the US could prosecute them and let the international court decide their innocence or guilt. Just like what they should have done with Saddam Hussein - he may have been guilty of a lot of crimes against Iraqi people but his fate should have been decided by an impartial panel of judges.
November 12, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly because the standards and thresholds for evidence and cause (show me the body!) are far below what any legitimate court would demand.
The International Criminal Court would turn quite a few of the Gitmo detainees loose and we don't want that to happen so we keep them in limbo.
Hate it, don't hate it, but I think that's why...
November 12, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those points are all negotiable. We can't hold them forever and The Hague knows this. So both sides have to give ground in making a legal framework that recognizes the US's determination of justice as well as the world/legal rights of the detainee's to know the reason for their confinement. It would be the only logical solution to involve the world legal system to bring this to its'logical conclusion. That way the US, as a whole, isn't stained over the actions of a few overzealous fanatics from the Bu$h and repug era.
November 12, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the big logistical problem here is that we can't find anybody to take these folks. For the detainees we think are guilty, the initial solution is easy - put them on trial - real trials, not a kangaroo court - and let the courts decide their fates. If convicted, they go to jail. If acquitted, thought, we run into the "where do we send them?" problem.
Take the Uighurs whom we're holding, for instance. We can't put them on trial because we now know - and have known - that they didn't do anything wrong. That negates the Hague option as well. We can't send them back to China - they'll end up in prison or worse if we do. And nobody else wants them. Letting them loose here the US probably wouldn't be a problem since they aren't a national security risk (unless we turned them into one by holding them for no reason for 7 freaking years - that would piss me off), but the wingers/anti-immigration nuts would scream bloody murder.
I'm hoping that our friends around the globe will quickly warm to the Obama administration, making them more willing to work with us in finding homes for those innocents held at Gitmo, homes where they won't be subject to further persecution.
November 12, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about sending them to Crawford, Texas, or better yet, Wyoming, assuming Cheney moves back...
November 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't see this as a huge fight at all. IMO, It is just very hard to muster an argument for indefinite detention with zero due process. The power of the argument that simply says "America does not put people in prison without trial" is undeniable.
November 12, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, the issue is the logistical and real world problem of what the heck to do with these people. That's a biggie.
November 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a problem but allowing Gitmo to stay open would stain Obama's presidency, so he has no choice but to move swiftly on this.
November 12, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Prisoning a prison."
That should be the motto.
http://www.thewholedelivery.com
November 12, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on. If Bush can create the prison with the stroke of a pen, Obama can dismantle it with the same. That might not be the best course politically. It sounds like he has a dozen options he could pursue for different cases. The federal courts can handle it. If a case gets thrown out, blame it on Bush and then extradite them to a Muslim country to face a new trial if that is warranted. It's about time some of our Islamic allies took some of the heat. Indonesia just killed all of the convicted night club bombers. Some of these guys are guilty as sin and deserve to be tried and executed. I just don't want my Constitution subverted in the process.
November 12, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink