The Long War on Terror: Obama Administration Plays Politics with Guantanamo

This article from Nick Baumann at Mother Jones is filled with political-insider information, but I think it is a significant marker of how the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has moved from an Obama pledge in January 2009 to a site for internal Administration struggle in November.

I learned several weeks ago that the Administration's top lawyer, Gregory Craig, was going to leave or be pushed out the door, in part because his political position was fixed to the promise to shut Gitmo. I was always sceptical, given the politics of the War on Terror, that the deadline of January 2010 was going to be met, so it was no surprise that Craig would have to walk the plank.

Britain’s Role in Pakistan Torture: Video and Human Rights Watch Report

The broader issue is that we are now in a mish-mash of measures. There will be trials in the US for a few detainees (such as 9-11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) whom the Administration is sure will be convicted without the use of lost or discredited (i.e., obtained "via duress") evidence. There will be military commissions for about 75 detainees whose convictions cannot be assured. And the rest of the prisoners will remain in the limbo of a Guantanamo that is open well into 2010.

Liberals have not done enough public wrestling with Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf's Time article on the ouster of White House counsel Gregory Craig. Perhaps that's because they don't want to deal with the article's troubling implications. As Kevinexplains, Craig was "the White House lawyer tasked with dismantling Bush-era interrogation and detention policies. At first, Obama was on board with Craig's plans.  Then, reality set in."

By "reality," Kevin presumably means "political reality." Time says that as soon as Obama's positions on Bush era torture -- releasing the torture photos, for example -- became politically difficult, the president jettisoned them. He did this despite the fact that he had been "prepared to accept -- and had even okayed" those same positions "just weeks earlier":

First to go was the release of the pictures of detainee abuse. Days later, Obama sided against Craig again, ending the suspension of Bush's extrajudicial military commissions. The following week, Obama pre-empted an ongoing debate among his national-security team and embraced one of the most controversial of Bush's positions: the holding of detainees without charges or trial, something he had promised during the campaign to reject.

But perhaps the most damning part of the Time piece is this sentence, near the beginning, that summarizes exactly what has happened in Obama's White House:

[Obama] quietly shifted responsibility for the legal framework for counterterrorism from Craig to political advisers overseen by Emanuel, who was more inclined to strike a balance between left and right.

Take a minute to think about how the left would respond to this if Obama was a Republican president.

Obama delegated the responsibility for determining what to do about detainees to his political advisers. If George W. Bush had charged his political advisers, including Karl Rove, with crafting such policy, the entire blogosphere would have melted down from outrage overload.

Obama's actions here are deeply at odds with the public image he cultivated during his campaign -- idealist, civil libertarian, constitutional law professor, someone who rose above politics. You can claim that the president is a "pragmatist," and always has been, but Obama draped himself in idealism and principle during the campaign. The left always complained that Bush let politics drive his policy decisions. But in this instance, couldn't Obama be accused of the same thing?

Israel Video: Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel at the Jewish Federation of North America

Israel: Netanyahu Arrives in Paris to Criticism from French Foreign Minister
Israel: White House Gets Busted on “Private” Meeting with Netanyahu
Transcript & Analysis: Netanyahu in US – Waiting for Obama, Talking about “Small” Israel

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

On Tuesday, President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, spoke at the Jewish Federation of North America's annual general assembly .He shared his Jewish roots with the audience and reiterated the rhetoric of the Obama Administration on the "significance of Israel's security to United States", "Palestinian responsibilities for stabilization", and "the rights of Palestinians on settlements and final borders [on] pre-1967 lines" Then he called on both parties to the negotiation table.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmt3ElbMJJw[/youtube]

Emanuel declared:

It is only through dialogue that we can achieve the lasting peace that Israel seeks.

Make no mistake, the path toward peace is not one that Israel should be asked to walk alone. That is why the U.S. will remain actively engaged, and Israel's one true friend. The Palestinians must come to the table, recognize Israel's right to exist and reject violence.

As the president has said many times, as the president said in Cairo, the bond between the Israel and the U.S. is unbreakable. It's a bond rooted in shared interests and shared values.

Emananuel reassured Israelis that Washington's engagement with the Muslim world was not at the expense of Israel's interests:

There are those who have questioned that, as this administration has sought to be engaged in the region. There are some who suggest this implies a diminished level of support for Israel... That is not the intent and that is not the case, and never will be.

At the end of the speech, Emanuel touched the Iranian question, "Today thanks to the work of the president there is strong and growing international consensus against a nuclear armed Iran. Israel has been "a beacon of democracy in a region too often defined by strife."