The Guantánamo Failure
July 31, 2016 4:38 AM Subscribe
Connie Bruck in The New Yorker: Why Obama Has Failed to Close Guantánamo
Congress is blamed for preventing the President from fulfilling his pledge. But that’s not the whole story.
Under international laws of war, enemy fighters may be detained without trial until the end of hostilities.
We've always been at war withEastasiaTerrorism.
posted by sammyo at 5:59 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
We've always been at war with
posted by sammyo at 5:59 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
I see that Rahm Emanuel had his fingers all over the early decision to give up on trying to close Guantanamo, essentially saying the Administration could only do one thing at a time. So very short-sighted.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:03 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:03 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
One thing that jumped out at me was the perverse incentive structures. Feed my family for life you say? Deal, here's my grandma! Make up stuff about your fellow detainees? Off to the porn room!
And yeah, it kinda looks like everyone's spent two full terms playing hot potato.
posted by iffthen at 6:22 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
And yeah, it kinda looks like everyone's spent two full terms playing hot potato.
posted by iffthen at 6:22 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama said, “I think I would have closed Guantánamo on the first day.” But the politics had got tough, he said, and “the path of least resistance was just to leave it open.”
Dear God, how feeble.
posted by Segundus at 6:57 AM on July 31, 2016 [15 favorites]
Dear God, how feeble.
posted by Segundus at 6:57 AM on July 31, 2016 [15 favorites]
“It was Obama’s lack of nerve to do what was politically difficult that created space for all the mischief that Congress made.”
There's not question that Obama could and should have done more. But to me, personally, much of the blame rests on all the people who choose to resist him, usually for their own warped reasons. What moral reason is there to keep people whom you know aren't dangerous in prison, what possible good could of that?! What moral reason could there be for intentionally creating a place where legal rights don't matter for prisoners, why would you want to set that precedent?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:14 AM on July 31, 2016 [28 favorites]
There's not question that Obama could and should have done more. But to me, personally, much of the blame rests on all the people who choose to resist him, usually for their own warped reasons. What moral reason is there to keep people whom you know aren't dangerous in prison, what possible good could of that?! What moral reason could there be for intentionally creating a place where legal rights don't matter for prisoners, why would you want to set that precedent?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:14 AM on July 31, 2016 [28 favorites]
What moral reason is there to keep people whom you know aren't dangerous in prison, what possible good could of that?! What moral reason could there be for intentionally creating a place where legal rights don't matter for prisoners, why would you want to set that precedent?
I liked that the article gave a lot more nuance to this topic though. They returned 8 prisoners to Kuwait, who immediately acquitted all of them, and one then drove a truck bomb into a military compound killing 13. Kuwait doesn't want to deal with them: their Interior Minister said it would be better if the US dropped off the remaining prisoners back in Afghanistan where they captured them in the first place.
posted by xdvesper at 7:22 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
I liked that the article gave a lot more nuance to this topic though. They returned 8 prisoners to Kuwait, who immediately acquitted all of them, and one then drove a truck bomb into a military compound killing 13. Kuwait doesn't want to deal with them: their Interior Minister said it would be better if the US dropped off the remaining prisoners back in Afghanistan where they captured them in the first place.
posted by xdvesper at 7:22 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not as if it didn't matter. America has assumed leadership of the West, yet here it deliberately, openly evades the rule of law and its own entrenched constitutional values, offering comfort to every dictator and carelessly betraying all its civilised allies.
posted by Segundus at 7:23 AM on July 31, 2016 [17 favorites]
posted by Segundus at 7:23 AM on July 31, 2016 [17 favorites]
The core issue is a bit buried in the middle:
“Defense was driving Justice extremely hard, arguing that they should fight every case on every possible ground, because they did not want to lose the lawful basis to continue detention,”
The generals are not worried about any crazed individual terrorist, they have a juicy tool that can be (and probably is) used in subversive warfare. Insane but some group (using a term like cabal would sound crazy) has a use, or it's a bullet on a future plan, or required contingency and clearly spending careful political resources to deflect the spirit of the law is easy and practical.
posted by sammyo at 7:45 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
“Defense was driving Justice extremely hard, arguing that they should fight every case on every possible ground, because they did not want to lose the lawful basis to continue detention,”
The generals are not worried about any crazed individual terrorist, they have a juicy tool that can be (and probably is) used in subversive warfare. Insane but some group (using a term like cabal would sound crazy) has a use, or it's a bullet on a future plan, or required contingency and clearly spending careful political resources to deflect the spirit of the law is easy and practical.
posted by sammyo at 7:45 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
While the 2010 Congress was indeed a big stumbling block for getting Gitmo closed, the question of what to do with the prisoners was something that had been constantly reported on since even the Bush administration. It's important to underscore that the Kuwait release/truck bombing incident happened during the Bush administration.
On some level, even just having the Guantanamo Bay Base on Cuba is a violation of supposed US values because of the supposed embargo of Cuba, yet we keep paying a lease to that government for the land the prison was built on.
The entire establishment of this prison was an international public relations debacle from the get go, and that it continues even today shows how governmental knee-jerk reactions and actions taken out of moral panic and fear can create complications that will ripple far into the future. The deep problems and tangles this article outlines about how difficult it has been to close the prison should be a warning for future administrations and generations about circumventing established national and international law on any basis. It only creates an intractable situation.
At this point I won't be surprised if Gitmo continues to exist (at great expense to the US population) until the last of the prisoners dies. And even then, they'll probably keep funding and staffing the prison. Because, you know... Never know when we'll "need" it again.
posted by hippybear at 7:53 AM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
On some level, even just having the Guantanamo Bay Base on Cuba is a violation of supposed US values because of the supposed embargo of Cuba, yet we keep paying a lease to that government for the land the prison was built on.
The entire establishment of this prison was an international public relations debacle from the get go, and that it continues even today shows how governmental knee-jerk reactions and actions taken out of moral panic and fear can create complications that will ripple far into the future. The deep problems and tangles this article outlines about how difficult it has been to close the prison should be a warning for future administrations and generations about circumventing established national and international law on any basis. It only creates an intractable situation.
At this point I won't be surprised if Gitmo continues to exist (at great expense to the US population) until the last of the prisoners dies. And even then, they'll probably keep funding and staffing the prison. Because, you know... Never know when we'll "need" it again.
posted by hippybear at 7:53 AM on July 31, 2016 [10 favorites]
I defend Obama's lackluster accomplishments, especially in the first term, a lot to my friends and family based on his good-faith attempts to actually heal bipartisanship. Rachel Maddow had a good run down of the argument.
A lot of what drew people to him was the possibility of restoring civil discourse after the Bush years. Especially since Obama was running against the petty, radicalized version of John McCain, so obviously broken by what Karl Rove and Co did to him when he ran against Bush. It may seem naive now, but it was really difficult to believe the Republicans could and would get so much more underhanded and obstructionist.
Obama's answer to that 7th grader DOES sound feeble, but he came to his presidency trying to be an adult at a fucking circus. He brought well reasoned arguments and the ability to compromise to a monkey knife fight. And that's what I wanted him to do.
posted by es_de_bah at 8:46 AM on July 31, 2016 [24 favorites]
A lot of what drew people to him was the possibility of restoring civil discourse after the Bush years. Especially since Obama was running against the petty, radicalized version of John McCain, so obviously broken by what Karl Rove and Co did to him when he ran against Bush. It may seem naive now, but it was really difficult to believe the Republicans could and would get so much more underhanded and obstructionist.
Obama's answer to that 7th grader DOES sound feeble, but he came to his presidency trying to be an adult at a fucking circus. He brought well reasoned arguments and the ability to compromise to a monkey knife fight. And that's what I wanted him to do.
posted by es_de_bah at 8:46 AM on July 31, 2016 [24 favorites]
I don't know, I'm pretty tired of how being the adult in the room apparently means giving in to the children on their awful demands. A spirit of bipartisan civility matters much less to me if the end result is continued unconstitutional detainment-without-trial. That place is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the nation and our supposed values.
posted by teponaztli at 9:24 AM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 9:24 AM on July 31, 2016 [9 favorites]
Obama's answer to that 7th grader DOES sound feeble, but he came to his presidency trying to be an adult at a fucking circus. He brought well reasoned arguments and the ability to compromise to a monkey knife fight. And that's what I wanted him to do.
I wanted him to apply those well reasoned arguments to closing Gitmo, ending the wars, punishing the people who caused the financial and housing crises and reforming Wall Street, and creating a more transparent government. Well reasoned and unsuccessful arguments are fine, too, I suppose.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:28 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
I wanted him to apply those well reasoned arguments to closing Gitmo, ending the wars, punishing the people who caused the financial and housing crises and reforming Wall Street, and creating a more transparent government. Well reasoned and unsuccessful arguments are fine, too, I suppose.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:28 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
My biggest fear is that they will shut it down...with everyone still inside. :/
posted by sexyrobot at 9:30 AM on July 31, 2016
posted by sexyrobot at 9:30 AM on July 31, 2016
What moral reason is there to keep people whom you know aren't dangerous in prison, what possible good could of that?
Decisions have potential, unknown costs that we can only estimate.
The political cost of having one former prisoner commit an atrocity is a lot, lot higher than the present political cost of keeping all/most of them detained indefinitely.
Politicians measure political costs in units of lost elections, 1.0 being having to look for another job.
To get a decision value using bayesian inference, you just multiply the costs by their respective probabilities.
Cost of keeping prisoners detained: 0.001
Probability of something bad happening each year in this case: 0.01
Bayesian estimate of status quo: 0.0001
Cost of having a prisoner you approved release of commit an atrocity: 0.5
Probability of this happening each year: 0.1 (ballpark)
Cost Estimate of doing the right thing: 0.05
By these numbers, the status quo is 500X more attractive to politicians than releasing the prisoners.
On the moral plane, "better than 1000 potential terrorists go free than 1 innocent man rots in jail" has a questionable maths on the Utilitarian scale.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:35 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
Decisions have potential, unknown costs that we can only estimate.
The political cost of having one former prisoner commit an atrocity is a lot, lot higher than the present political cost of keeping all/most of them detained indefinitely.
Politicians measure political costs in units of lost elections, 1.0 being having to look for another job.
To get a decision value using bayesian inference, you just multiply the costs by their respective probabilities.
Cost of keeping prisoners detained: 0.001
Probability of something bad happening each year in this case: 0.01
Bayesian estimate of status quo: 0.0001
Cost of having a prisoner you approved release of commit an atrocity: 0.5
Probability of this happening each year: 0.1 (ballpark)
Cost Estimate of doing the right thing: 0.05
By these numbers, the status quo is 500X more attractive to politicians than releasing the prisoners.
On the moral plane, "better than 1000 potential terrorists go free than 1 innocent man rots in jail" has a questionable maths on the Utilitarian scale.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:35 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
Metafilter: Bringing the ability to compromise to a monkey knife fight.
posted by jonp72 at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by jonp72 at 9:50 AM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
I wanted him to apply those well reasoned arguments to closing Gitmo, ending the wars, punishing the people who caused the financial and housing crises and reforming Wall Street, and creating a more transparent government. Well reasoned and unsuccessful arguments are fine, too, I suppose.
What you wanted was a prime minister with both executive and legislative power. Presidents need congress, and when congress is in opposition you need to compromise, which is what Obama tried to do. If he had known congress would obstruct everything he did no matter what, he wouldn't have bothered trying to compromise and just continued pushing. But 20/20 hindsight, etc.
posted by rocket88 at 10:00 AM on July 31, 2016
What you wanted was a prime minister with both executive and legislative power. Presidents need congress, and when congress is in opposition you need to compromise, which is what Obama tried to do. If he had known congress would obstruct everything he did no matter what, he wouldn't have bothered trying to compromise and just continued pushing. But 20/20 hindsight, etc.
posted by rocket88 at 10:00 AM on July 31, 2016
It is open because not enough americans want it closed...
posted by asra at 10:10 AM on July 31, 2016 [18 favorites]
posted by asra at 10:10 AM on July 31, 2016 [18 favorites]
I know it's not a direct quote, but "why are we going to waste our political capital on detainees?" should forever haunt Rahm Emanuel and everyone else in the administration, including Obama.
posted by teponaztli at 10:21 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by teponaztli at 10:21 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
What you wanted was a prime minister with both executive and legislative power. Presidents need congress, and when congress is in opposition you need to compromise, which is what Obama tried to do.
Obama had majorities in the House and the Senate when he was inaugurated. They weren't great majorities, but Congress wasn't "in opposition" to start with.
posted by Etrigan at 10:33 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
Obama had majorities in the House and the Senate when he was inaugurated. They weren't great majorities, but Congress wasn't "in opposition" to start with.
posted by Etrigan at 10:33 AM on July 31, 2016 [5 favorites]
I do have I to say, as frustrating as it is that her voting record in Congress didn't really help things, I'm pleased to know that Clinton, as Secretary of State, was willing to push back against Obama's spinelessness apparent lack of sufficient conviction on the issue. It says good things about her that she was willing to take political risks when he wouldn't.
posted by teponaztli at 10:44 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by teponaztli at 10:44 AM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
teponaztli: "I know it's not a direct quote, but "why are we going to waste our political capital on detainees?" should forever haunt Rahm Emanuel and everyone else in the administration, including Obama."
Does Emanuel strike you as someone haunted by his past decisions?
posted by octothorpe at 10:57 AM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]
Does Emanuel strike you as someone haunted by his past decisions?
posted by octothorpe at 10:57 AM on July 31, 2016 [12 favorites]
Ha, I said should, not will.
posted by teponaztli at 11:02 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by teponaztli at 11:02 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Does Emanuel strike you as someone haunted by his past decisions?
He probably will be after the next election in Chicago.
posted by srboisvert at 11:10 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
He probably will be after the next election in Chicago.
posted by srboisvert at 11:10 AM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Do we have any research on whether ex concentration camp guards were ever haunted by their wartime work?
posted by infini at 11:14 AM on July 31, 2016
posted by infini at 11:14 AM on July 31, 2016
No, it is not closed. It should be. The process has been painfully slow, but I think it is also important to recognize that at this point 90% of the population of gitmo has been released.
It is sickening how slow the process is, and to think these some of these people have been POW since 2001 is disgusting.
posted by AlexiaSky at 12:28 PM on July 31, 2016
It is sickening how slow the process is, and to think these some of these people have been POW since 2001 is disgusting.
posted by AlexiaSky at 12:28 PM on July 31, 2016
at this point 90% of the population of gitmo has been released.
There are far fewer people at the site than there used to be, but many, if not most, have never been released. Instead, they've been transferred to other facilities in other countries. Some of those prisoners were released, but it was very much against the wishes and intentions of the US government. One of the solutions mentioned in the TFA is to try to send as many as possible to supermax prisons, if possible. I got the sense reading this that the facility itself might close, but the extralegal detainment it's known for is bound to continue elsewhere.
posted by teponaztli at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
There are far fewer people at the site than there used to be, but many, if not most, have never been released. Instead, they've been transferred to other facilities in other countries. Some of those prisoners were released, but it was very much against the wishes and intentions of the US government. One of the solutions mentioned in the TFA is to try to send as many as possible to supermax prisons, if possible. I got the sense reading this that the facility itself might close, but the extralegal detainment it's known for is bound to continue elsewhere.
posted by teponaztli at 12:52 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Etrigan: "Obama had majorities in the House and the Senate when he was inaugurated. They weren't great majorities, but Congress wasn't "in opposition" to start with."
May 20, 2009 - Senate blocks transfer of Gitmo detaineesposted by Rhaomi at 1:11 PM on July 31, 2016 [7 favorites]
In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States. Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.
Dec. 8, 2010 - House bars moving Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil
The House of Representatives on Wednesday approved legislation to prohibit moving terrorism suspects from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay to U.S. soil, a blow to President Barack Obama's efforts to prosecute them in criminal courts. The proposed legislation prevents moving such prisoners to the United States under any circumstances by prohibiting the administration from spending any money to do so.
Prime ministers lose votes too. There's a difference between "in opposition" and "doesn't vote with the President".
posted by Etrigan at 1:14 PM on July 31, 2016
posted by Etrigan at 1:14 PM on July 31, 2016
Heywood Mogroot III: "Bayesian estimate of status quo: 0.0001"
Okay, I sort of hate to be the person calling out the statistical analysis in the middle of a politics thread, but this is a little facile and I don't think it adds much to the discussion. In the first instance you're just making up the numbers, which doesn't add a lot of credibility to the analysis, and in the second instance you're assuming that the people you're talking to would accept the implicit statistical premise that expected utility theory is the correct foundation for making ethical decisions.
But even setting those concerns aside, it still isn't helpful to present a statistical decision theory analysis the way you've done here. Bayesian decision theory requires that we attach a utility value to every possible action, and then select the action with maximum expected utility. But expected utility is not supposed to be calculated merely by considering the immediate short range consequences of one's actions, you also need to consider what happens over a longer time frame (it's why sequential decision making - via POMDPs, for instance - is hard). What utility is obtained by "setting a good example", or "signalling that you're willing to behave like a civilised nation", or "being able to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning without crying" etc? Enlightened self-interest requires a much more nuanced approach to assigning utilities, and an earnest Bayesian analysis of the problem needs to grapple with that too. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like you're just wrapping a half-considered layer of maths around a fairly simplistic worldview, and - as a Bayesian myself - I'd sort of prefer it if we were a little more careful about not giving that impression to the wider world!
posted by the existence of stars below the horizon at 1:22 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]
Okay, I sort of hate to be the person calling out the statistical analysis in the middle of a politics thread, but this is a little facile and I don't think it adds much to the discussion. In the first instance you're just making up the numbers, which doesn't add a lot of credibility to the analysis, and in the second instance you're assuming that the people you're talking to would accept the implicit statistical premise that expected utility theory is the correct foundation for making ethical decisions.
But even setting those concerns aside, it still isn't helpful to present a statistical decision theory analysis the way you've done here. Bayesian decision theory requires that we attach a utility value to every possible action, and then select the action with maximum expected utility. But expected utility is not supposed to be calculated merely by considering the immediate short range consequences of one's actions, you also need to consider what happens over a longer time frame (it's why sequential decision making - via POMDPs, for instance - is hard). What utility is obtained by "setting a good example", or "signalling that you're willing to behave like a civilised nation", or "being able to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning without crying" etc? Enlightened self-interest requires a much more nuanced approach to assigning utilities, and an earnest Bayesian analysis of the problem needs to grapple with that too. Otherwise you run the risk of looking like you're just wrapping a half-considered layer of maths around a fairly simplistic worldview, and - as a Bayesian myself - I'd sort of prefer it if we were a little more careful about not giving that impression to the wider world!
posted by the existence of stars below the horizon at 1:22 PM on July 31, 2016 [11 favorites]
Decisions have potential, unknown costs that we can only estimate.
The political cost of having one former prisoner commit an atrocity is a lot, lot higher than the present political cost of keeping all/most of them detained indefinitely.
I think the decisions made on this issue have definite knowable costs of guaranteeing we have created terrorists out of the friends and families of those people we have abused.
Thanks to this disgraceful decision, the political cost is growing incrementally.
posted by BlueHorse at 1:28 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
The political cost of having one former prisoner commit an atrocity is a lot, lot higher than the present political cost of keeping all/most of them detained indefinitely.
I think the decisions made on this issue have definite knowable costs of guaranteeing we have created terrorists out of the friends and families of those people we have abused.
Thanks to this disgraceful decision, the political cost is growing incrementally.
posted by BlueHorse at 1:28 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Obama had majorities in the House and the Senate when he was inaugurated.
He did not have 60 veto proof vote and he never had anything resembling a solid version of that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
He did not have 60 veto proof vote and he never had anything resembling a solid version of that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:40 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it seems that in addition to having to fight all the Republicans in Congress, perhaps some Dems, all of the Defense department, the Justice department, several key Judges, unknown generals quietly plotting in the background and some of his closest staff members. The guy is good, but a monkey knife fight would've been easy.
posted by sammyo at 8:32 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 8:32 PM on July 31, 2016 [1 favorite]
If we believe in the clear insuperability of all those obstacles, then he should have been smart or honest enough not to promise to close it.
But despite the Congressional bills so often cited by his defenders, this article makes it clear that there were avenues available even after these bills were passed that were persistently not taken for years. The clearest culprits here are the Secretaries of Defense -- Gates, Panetta, Hagel, Carter -- who clearly dodged and slow-walked the transfer to other countries (which again, was not prevented by Congress) as much as they absolutely could. The article makes it clear that it was not, ultimately, a problem of finding countries to send them -- with enough bribes, it seems, most prisoners would be accepted somewhere. Rather, it was supposed fear about the "personal responsibility" proviso in the 2010 bill. But this was just BS. Even before that proviso was weakened, these guys were at the top of the "look forward not backward" pyramid -- there was no chance they would be personally prosecuted for recidivism in some distant country years hence.
And the fact that things finally started moving a bit more with Carter shows that they could have moved forward earlier. Obama essentially fired Hagel for resisting releases, and then had to strong-arm Carter. But it is clear he could have started this process many years earlier, firing non-compliant SecDefs and refusing to hear bullshit about forms not being on desks or whatever pathetic stories they were telling. And he did, eventually, come around on that -- but only after multiple years. Basically, if had taken this problem seriously before Congress passed the first bills, or taken it seriously afterward to the point where he was willing to risk the capital of firing his Secretaries and pissing off DoD, he could have gotten a lot more done a lot sooner. And that's not even going into the constitutional option of simply declaring that specific monetary restrictions on war powers is unconstitutional.
Finally, though the anonymous "administration" sources here go out of their way to paint Clinton as a closure advocate, the public evidence is weak.
Basically, they all come out looking terribly. Unlike Emanuel or the Secretaries of Defense, at least Clinton and Obama seem to be well-meaning. But they both appear cowardly and craven in procrastinating on spending the capital they needed to spend to get it done -- actions which, again, had nothing to do with Congress. And the result is Guantanamo remains a national disgrace.
posted by chortly at 11:12 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
But despite the Congressional bills so often cited by his defenders, this article makes it clear that there were avenues available even after these bills were passed that were persistently not taken for years. The clearest culprits here are the Secretaries of Defense -- Gates, Panetta, Hagel, Carter -- who clearly dodged and slow-walked the transfer to other countries (which again, was not prevented by Congress) as much as they absolutely could. The article makes it clear that it was not, ultimately, a problem of finding countries to send them -- with enough bribes, it seems, most prisoners would be accepted somewhere. Rather, it was supposed fear about the "personal responsibility" proviso in the 2010 bill. But this was just BS. Even before that proviso was weakened, these guys were at the top of the "look forward not backward" pyramid -- there was no chance they would be personally prosecuted for recidivism in some distant country years hence.
And the fact that things finally started moving a bit more with Carter shows that they could have moved forward earlier. Obama essentially fired Hagel for resisting releases, and then had to strong-arm Carter. But it is clear he could have started this process many years earlier, firing non-compliant SecDefs and refusing to hear bullshit about forms not being on desks or whatever pathetic stories they were telling. And he did, eventually, come around on that -- but only after multiple years. Basically, if had taken this problem seriously before Congress passed the first bills, or taken it seriously afterward to the point where he was willing to risk the capital of firing his Secretaries and pissing off DoD, he could have gotten a lot more done a lot sooner. And that's not even going into the constitutional option of simply declaring that specific monetary restrictions on war powers is unconstitutional.
Finally, though the anonymous "administration" sources here go out of their way to paint Clinton as a closure advocate, the public evidence is weak.
When Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, it was unclear how strong an ally she would be in the closing of Guantánamo. As a senator, she had at times seemed to waver in her views on how detainees should be treated. In July, 2006, she noted that American law permitted them to be held until the war on terrorism was over, even if they had been tried and acquitted. “I mean, we had Nazis in prison camps in our country for years,” she said. Then, reportedly after a series of tense meetings, she agreed to support legislation that would allow detainees to challenge their detention in court. She told the Daily News that she would endorse torture to gain information in a “ticking-time-bomb scenario” that put many lives at immediate risk, but she subsequently reversed herself, saying, “It cannot be American policy, period.” In 2007, she co-sponsored legislation that would allow detainees to be moved to a facility in the United States. A month later, she voted for an amendment intended to prevent just such a move.The author is going out of her way to help out Clinton here ("seemed to waver," "unclear how strong"), but the details all argue in the same direction. Fried gets some crappy sixth-floor office. She attends a meeting to reestablish tribunals, supposedly in order to push back, but lo, in 2011 they are reestablished. And then at the end of her term,
Before Clinton left the State Department, in February, 2013, she sent Obama a memo urging him to renew the process of closing Guantánamo, and making specific recommendations. Then she shut down the Guantánamo office and moved Fried to another position in the State Department. According to the former Administration official, she didn’t want Fried to languish in a futile job... In an unmistakably peremptory gesture, she shut the office without informing the White House.There too, the facts are that she shut down the office on her way out. Obama did manage to get things moving again, but again, in a way that he or she could have done years earlier.
Basically, they all come out looking terribly. Unlike Emanuel or the Secretaries of Defense, at least Clinton and Obama seem to be well-meaning. But they both appear cowardly and craven in procrastinating on spending the capital they needed to spend to get it done -- actions which, again, had nothing to do with Congress. And the result is Guantanamo remains a national disgrace.
posted by chortly at 11:12 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Obama had majorities in the House and the Senate when he was inaugurated. They weren't great majorities, but Congress wasn't "in opposition" to start with.
This is an important and valid point, and not at all just relevant to Guantanamo Bay, to our collective national embarrassment and to our global tragedy.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:24 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is an important and valid point, and not at all just relevant to Guantanamo Bay, to our collective national embarrassment and to our global tragedy.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:24 PM on July 31, 2016 [2 favorites]
Shit, Obama can't get a fucking Supreme Court Nominee advised or consented, so I'm not going be too critical about him not shutting down the Guantanamo Gulag.
posted by mikelieman at 2:05 AM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mikelieman at 2:05 AM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
And, of course, there's one option Obama had from Day One that would have worked perfectly for actually ending the illegal detention program: the Presidential power of pardons.
"Give these people trials, end this mockery of the very concept of Justice and this violation of our most basic and essential laws, or I will issue a blanket Presidential pardon to every single one of them and close down this vile program that way."
But fighting for the basic principle of law that protects us all from tyranny was never, apparently, very high on Obama's priority list. From the beginning he seemed to willfully misinterpret what people meant when they said they wanted Guantanamo closed. He seemed to want that to mean "the existence of a physical prison in Cuba is bad, but endless detention of people without trial or even charges is A-OK!", when of course no one who objected to Guantanamo cared one whit about the location of the detention facility, it was the total lack of anything even faintly resembling due process that had us riled up.
If Obama had transferred every single person out of Guantanamo Bay, but kept them locked up in cages without a trial or even formal charges, I wouldn't have counted that as a victory, nor Obama living up to his promise. Yet from the very beginning Obama seemed perversely obsessed with keeping the victims locked up.
I personally argue they should have been released, given massive pensions, and allowed to live in the USA. We, collectively, caused the problem when we permitted Bush to open up Guantanamo rather than impeaching the motherfucker for violating the Constitution by having "detainees". We deserve whatever price that fate may extract from us for that. If a former detainee blows up a bus or a building in the USA, well, that's the price we owe for creating that mockery of justice in the first place.
posted by sotonohito at 4:04 AM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Give these people trials, end this mockery of the very concept of Justice and this violation of our most basic and essential laws, or I will issue a blanket Presidential pardon to every single one of them and close down this vile program that way."
But fighting for the basic principle of law that protects us all from tyranny was never, apparently, very high on Obama's priority list. From the beginning he seemed to willfully misinterpret what people meant when they said they wanted Guantanamo closed. He seemed to want that to mean "the existence of a physical prison in Cuba is bad, but endless detention of people without trial or even charges is A-OK!", when of course no one who objected to Guantanamo cared one whit about the location of the detention facility, it was the total lack of anything even faintly resembling due process that had us riled up.
If Obama had transferred every single person out of Guantanamo Bay, but kept them locked up in cages without a trial or even formal charges, I wouldn't have counted that as a victory, nor Obama living up to his promise. Yet from the very beginning Obama seemed perversely obsessed with keeping the victims locked up.
I personally argue they should have been released, given massive pensions, and allowed to live in the USA. We, collectively, caused the problem when we permitted Bush to open up Guantanamo rather than impeaching the motherfucker for violating the Constitution by having "detainees". We deserve whatever price that fate may extract from us for that. If a former detainee blows up a bus or a building in the USA, well, that's the price we owe for creating that mockery of justice in the first place.
posted by sotonohito at 4:04 AM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
Detainees weren't being held as punishment, so pardons wouldn't do anything.
posted by jpe at 4:40 AM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jpe at 4:40 AM on August 1, 2016 [1 favorite]
I suppose "the dog ate my homework" describes a substantial percentage of what politicians say, but really it boils down to them selling shit they've no serious plans to deliver on.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:29 AM on August 1, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 7:29 AM on August 1, 2016
You didn't even need to impeach him. Any Federal Prosecutor could have nailed the entire Bush Gang for violating 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 371 based on their fucking Meet The Press transcripts.
If they cared to.
posted by mikelieman at 8:15 AM on August 1, 2016
If they cared to.
posted by mikelieman at 8:15 AM on August 1, 2016
"Give these people trials, end this mockery of the very concept of Justice and this violation of our most basic and essential laws, or I will issue a blanket Presidential pardon to every single one of them and close down this vile program that way."
And that would have been the entire story of his first and only term as president. Not dealing with the economic disaster he was left with, or the two wars that were happening at the time, or any other aspects of domestic policy that were also on his agenda.
I guess the upside is that instead of the Trump dumpster fire we have right now we'd be watching Romney/Ryan's bid for re-election. That is assuming that two out of control wars and a full on economic collapse wouldn't have opened the door for Trump to demagogue his way into office 4 years ago.
And "perversely obsessed with keeping them locked up" ??? That's not a real thing that happened. You're just making shit up now.
posted by billyfleetwood at 12:31 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
And that would have been the entire story of his first and only term as president. Not dealing with the economic disaster he was left with, or the two wars that were happening at the time, or any other aspects of domestic policy that were also on his agenda.
I guess the upside is that instead of the Trump dumpster fire we have right now we'd be watching Romney/Ryan's bid for re-election. That is assuming that two out of control wars and a full on economic collapse wouldn't have opened the door for Trump to demagogue his way into office 4 years ago.
And "perversely obsessed with keeping them locked up" ??? That's not a real thing that happened. You're just making shit up now.
posted by billyfleetwood at 12:31 PM on August 1, 2016 [3 favorites]
Obama said, “I think I would have closed Guantánamo on the first day.” But the politics had got tough, he said, and “the path of least resistance was just to leave it open.”
Dear God, how feeble.
Yeah, my reading of that is a bit different. Obama's spent 5.5 years dealing with some of the biggest shitheads in US politics, so (even though it was easier before 2010) when he says the politics of closing Guantanamo "got tough" this probably isn't your usual level of toughness. Do you think perhaps he's being understated?
And the other thing... He's the first black President in a nation with ridiculous amounts of institutional and structural racism. He's accomplished quite a bit in spite of said shitheads. He said (with I think only 99% humour) that anyone dating his daughters should recall that he controls the US's drone fleet. There's lots of terms I'd use but "feeble" isn't one.
A final point about Guantanamo - sure there's lots of political cover-your-ass going on through various branches of the government. But in terms of leadership ability, Obama is head and shoulders above any of these other individuals. He should use that to his advantage to close the thing down before he heads off to his t-shirt shack on the beach. (I think a lot of these other individuals at Defense, State, and so on are trying to disclaim responsibility - maybe he could say "lift your game and I'll run political interference for you until I go"?)
(Enough Obama cheerleading, I'll jump over to one of the Aussie threads now and talk about Turnbull.)
posted by iffthen at 7:27 PM on August 1, 2016
Dear God, how feeble.
Yeah, my reading of that is a bit different. Obama's spent 5.5 years dealing with some of the biggest shitheads in US politics, so (even though it was easier before 2010) when he says the politics of closing Guantanamo "got tough" this probably isn't your usual level of toughness. Do you think perhaps he's being understated?
And the other thing... He's the first black President in a nation with ridiculous amounts of institutional and structural racism. He's accomplished quite a bit in spite of said shitheads. He said (with I think only 99% humour) that anyone dating his daughters should recall that he controls the US's drone fleet. There's lots of terms I'd use but "feeble" isn't one.
A final point about Guantanamo - sure there's lots of political cover-your-ass going on through various branches of the government. But in terms of leadership ability, Obama is head and shoulders above any of these other individuals. He should use that to his advantage to close the thing down before he heads off to his t-shirt shack on the beach. (I think a lot of these other individuals at Defense, State, and so on are trying to disclaim responsibility - maybe he could say "lift your game and I'll run political interference for you until I go"?)
(Enough Obama cheerleading, I'll jump over to one of the Aussie threads now and talk about Turnbull.)
posted by iffthen at 7:27 PM on August 1, 2016
jpe Then what were the held under that Congress could stop Obama from just letting them go if Congress wouldn't play ball?
As President he can pardon anyone for anything. As Commander in Chief he can surely order the release of prisoners of war. Surely the magic word "detainee" doesn't mean the President is utterly powerless.
I was given to understand that the main difficulty was with Congress refusing to fund or in any other way assist in giving the detainees trials, moving them, or really doing anything except holding them in cages (with occasional torture) until they all died.
I mentioned the possibility of pardoning them as a form of leverage Obama might have had. If they aren't held under any authority, then they can be released, right? And if Congress won't negotiate and actually help resolve the problem than they can be released anywhere, right?
"Here's the deal Representative Asshole, either we get these people charges, trials, and deal with them that way, or I'm ending their detention and they'll be released in the place of my choosing. And right now I'm thinking your congressional district looks like a **REALLY GOOD** place to release them. Oh, what's that? You'll stop obstructing trials now? Great!"
If Obama has the power to hold them, then he has the power to release them, no?
posted by sotonohito at 9:20 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
As President he can pardon anyone for anything. As Commander in Chief he can surely order the release of prisoners of war. Surely the magic word "detainee" doesn't mean the President is utterly powerless.
I was given to understand that the main difficulty was with Congress refusing to fund or in any other way assist in giving the detainees trials, moving them, or really doing anything except holding them in cages (with occasional torture) until they all died.
I mentioned the possibility of pardoning them as a form of leverage Obama might have had. If they aren't held under any authority, then they can be released, right? And if Congress won't negotiate and actually help resolve the problem than they can be released anywhere, right?
"Here's the deal Representative Asshole, either we get these people charges, trials, and deal with them that way, or I'm ending their detention and they'll be released in the place of my choosing. And right now I'm thinking your congressional district looks like a **REALLY GOOD** place to release them. Oh, what's that? You'll stop obstructing trials now? Great!"
If Obama has the power to hold them, then he has the power to release them, no?
posted by sotonohito at 9:20 AM on August 2, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yes, the whole article is about how he has managed to release dozens of them since the Congressional bills passed, despite their restrictions on funding and bringing prisoners to the US. The main thing slowing down this process was not Congress but foot-dragging by the Secretaries of Defense, Justice, and the Department of Defense. But as the article makes clear, Obama eventually started paying more attention, pressuring and firing as needed to get things flowing.
But if he was eventually able to do this, he could have done it years earlier. All the talk about Republican (and Democratic) resistance in Congress, historic political opposition, etc, etc, is irrelevant here. Obama runs the executive and the military. He is free to force people to do what he wants or fire them. And he started doing exactly that eventually. He could have done the same years ago, but he didn't out of a combination of distraction, naivete, and fear of antagonizing the pentagon. He learned otherwise, but probably too late to actually close the prison camp, and certainly too late for the many who have died or suffered needlessly in the interim. The article (and many others) makes clear that this was a failure of will, not a matter of Congressional gridlock or some insuperable bureaucratic knife-fight. It makes clear that he could, and eventually did, get things done -- he just chose not to for half a decade.
posted by chortly at 10:56 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
But if he was eventually able to do this, he could have done it years earlier. All the talk about Republican (and Democratic) resistance in Congress, historic political opposition, etc, etc, is irrelevant here. Obama runs the executive and the military. He is free to force people to do what he wants or fire them. And he started doing exactly that eventually. He could have done the same years ago, but he didn't out of a combination of distraction, naivete, and fear of antagonizing the pentagon. He learned otherwise, but probably too late to actually close the prison camp, and certainly too late for the many who have died or suffered needlessly in the interim. The article (and many others) makes clear that this was a failure of will, not a matter of Congressional gridlock or some insuperable bureaucratic knife-fight. It makes clear that he could, and eventually did, get things done -- he just chose not to for half a decade.
posted by chortly at 10:56 AM on August 2, 2016 [3 favorites]
« Older Thinking About Causality | They’re personable, they’re entertaining, they... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by infini at 5:49 AM on July 31, 2016 [4 favorites]