Is America safer?
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney presented competing views on national security on Thursday. The President defended his decision to close Guantanamo Bay, arguing that the prison camp became “a rallying cry for our enemies.” Cheney defended the legacy of his former administration, pointing out that the interrogation methods of the Bush administration helped save American lives and were legal.
Without the classified information made available to Obama and Cheney, the public can only speculate as to which of the competing views seems more credible. From a spectator’s standpoint, it appears that both the Obama and Bush administrations have made their share of mistakes.
Guantanamo Bay, by all media accounts, inflamed anti-American sentiment abroad. It became widely known as the place where interrogators employed the same tactics used on detainees at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, from intimidating prisoners with menacing dogs to humiliating them with women’s underwear. The President pointed out that such tactics tarnished America’s standing in the world, by offering terrorists “a rallying cry” and by discouraging our European allies from offering their full support.
The President also failed to offer a comprehensive plan to dismantle the detention center. Recently the Democratic-led Senate voted 90 to 6 to deny President Obama the $80 million he requested to help transfer detainees to U.S.-based courts and prisons to help close Guantanamo Bay. No country currently wants to take on the detainees. Questions remain unanswered on what to do with detainees who pose a threat to the U.S., but not enough evidence exists for their prosecution in courts.
To what extent should harsh interrogation techniques be allowed in order to protect the nation’s interests? Is the U.S.’s decision to close Guantanamo seen positively or negatively around the world? Will this decision be perceived as giving into international pressure or as a moral decision to adhere to higher standards?
Given the President’s constitutional duty as commander-in-chief and the availability of pertinent classified intelligence information, perhaps only the President can draw the ultimate line between harsh interrogation techniques and “torture.” In drawing the line between harsh interrogation techniques and “torture,” Bush was harshly criticized for going overboard, although Cheney vigorously defended techniques like waterboarding as tough, legal measures that were necessary to save American lives.
Well, Obama was right about one thing, it is indeed a “rallying cry for our enemies.” Statists in America and Europe (America’s loudest enemies) have been rallying against it since it became politically correct to do so. As far as terrorists go, it doesn’t matter what they think about Gitmo, (we can only wish they fear it) but I’m pretty sure they are laughing right about now, and have a few “enhanced interrogation techniques” that are far more life threatening than waterboarding.
Cheney is right, Obama is wrong again.
So who is right? We may never know. By the time the records are available concerning what has been learned at Gitmo, what attacks may have been thwarted, what are the results and what techniques were really used, by the time they are released we will most likely be feeding the ground critters. In the absence of the real data all we can do is speculate.
As far as a rallying cry, BS. There is no need for a rallying cry, they already “rally” against any perceived attack or threat so if isn’t Gitmo it would be just something else. The one “fact” we do have is the total absence of terrorist attacks on US soil. Having traveled overseas, having seen out border with Mexico, knowing the financial resources available to our enemies, the fact that there has not been a single pipe bomb at the local mall shows there is some type of security out there working behind the scenes.
Given the straw argument of a rallying cry vs. the absence of local attacks one could infer that Gitmo along with other activities have been a security success. With the absence of data to the contrary sometimes the most simplest explanation is the explanation.
I think this whole issue is nonsense. Americans have courts and laws to protect Americans. I think the detainees should be sent back to their countries of origin. When an American was found in a foreign terrorist training camp, did we leave him there to stand trial? No, he was extradited and sentenced in a US court. lf extradiction is not possible because the US has no extradiction with a certain detainee’s country, try them in our military court. Leave them at Gitmo and rename it the sunshine camp. Laws are always changing and maybe their country of origin will eventually want them back! As far as “torture” techniques are concerned, I get harrassed daily by my neighbor’s menacing pitbull. My middle schooler is humililated mercilessly if he wears the wrong clothes. My daughter is horrified of spiders. Life is full of unpleasantries. And like the saying goes, ” if it doesn’t kill you, it makes you stronger. I consider torture as life changing physical harm; loss of a major body part, disfigurement or disability that causes lifelong or long term impairment. All the detainees at Gitmo have lost their freedom. Don’t ask me if I would like to lose my freedom and have no recourse to prove my innocence. Don’t ask me if I would like to be the one “waterboarded”. Of course not. I did not voluntarily put myself in the midst of a warzone. I did not commit any crimes so I would want to be brought back to the US to prove my innocence. WE in the US are too used to a Republic that seeks fairness and justice built upon a constitution that values individual rights. A constitution that was drawn up by our forefathers that had values based in Christianity—-yes, Christian values that were the premise of their value system. Just like Buddhism is the moral value system of majority Buddhist countries, Islam the moral value system of Muslim countries, Hinduism the moral value of Hindu countries, etc… The USA cannot impose its laws in other countries. Why should we try their patrons in our courts? I think we are trying to view the world through our morality and our laws when it is so brutally obvious that that is not the case.
I believe the enemy combatants should be tried in a military court, and those who are given additional or life sentences should be held at Gitmo.
My concern is that the enemy combatants were not given their constitutionally mandated right to be charged and to receive swift trials; therefore, if they are brought back to U.S. soil, will the courts immediately release them rather than put them on trial? (I’m assuming this will not be an issue for the military courts, but President Obama has said that some “detainees” will be tried in nonmilitary courts.)
If our civilian courts make an exception and put the enemy conbatants on trial–rather than releasing them–then the courts will have made one more exception to our U.S. Constitution. I think it’s dangerous to the constitutional rights of future generations when our Judges ignore the U.S. Constitution and make their own laws, thereby overstepping their authority. We saw that, for example, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in December 2000 in favor of George W. Bush and said that their ruling would apply to only that election. Never in American history had the U.S. Supreme Court stated that a ruling would apply to only that instance.
Judges ignoring the laws and the U.S. Constitution–and therefore making rulings that apply to only specific cases or certain people–is dangerous. It’s ultimately how one section of the population will be able to silence and control another segment.
My biggest concern is that the agencies who gather intelligence to protect us will be systematically dismantled as they were under Clinton. We cannot return to a pre-9/11 attitude. That will make us less safe. Keeping the Gitmo and Cheney/Obama controversy in the forefront allows the current administration to pick apart our military, intelligence agencies, and our homeland security without the notice of the American people. Read between the lines.
The attack experienced by Americans in New York city preceeded the establishment of Gitmo. It would seem sufficient motivation for terrorist recruitment existed prior to Gitmo. Therefore, the dismantling of Gitmo seems irrelevant. To the contrary, the promulgation of Gitmo horror stories, whether true or false, may serve to elicit prompter intelligence information from terrorists who may be interred there in the future. Perhaps the most powerful motivating factor in that regard is the fear of the unknown that awaits those yet to be interred at Gitmo.
One cannot negotiate with terrorists by assuming the terrorists share the same logical, moral, and ethical mind set of Americans. They do not. Such idle bleeding-heart rhetoric is politically motivated and designed for more noble American vote-casting consumption. Enhanced interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, have not resulted in the death of those questioned, and must be questioned as to whether they constitute torture. Such techniques have proved effective in eliciting information crucial to American security. The question remains as to whether other techniques could have proved as successful. It seems reasonable to continue the use of those techniques that have been proven to be effective in the past, while experimenting with new techniques being developed for future interrogations of terrorists whose cultural and ideological perspectives differ significantly from that of Americans.
In other parts of the world, like Vietnam, for example, people were recruited to causes they would not otherwise engage because their immediate family and loved ones were threatened. Villagers subcumbed when the chief of their village was publicly beheaded in front of them by terrorizing fanactics. Islamic terrorists do not willingly sign up because they think Gitmo is inhumane. They sign up because they believe their loved ones will be tortured and killed if they resist. Their fear of the terrorist recuriters far outweights their fear of American interrogators.
Fear is a powerful motivator. One could wish that the mantra “love conquers all” would be sufficient to convert terrorist fanactics to American ideals of liberty and justice for all. Historically, however, such attempts have proved far more time consuming and far less motivationally effective than the threat of bodily injury. The battle to win the hearts and minds of folks from other cultures must begin before terrorists attack Americans. Once attacked, however, Americans must respond not with soft sentimentally negotiated appeasments, but with deliberate inhibiting might. Americans are safer when the adverse consequences to those who would dare to attack Americans are promulgated far and wide. It is necessary to unleash the ferocity of America’s might when the time is right. We must do so without apology.
As you say, Guantanamo Bay “by all media accounts” inflamed anti-American sentiment abroad. Truth is, the American media, motivated by and appealing to Bush-bashers, and amply aided by the propaganda of the radicals the U.S. is fighting against, created this image of Guantanamo as a lawless torture chamber. We are foolish to set our policy in the War on Terror (oops! did I say that) based on what Europeans or any one else “thinks” of us. If its not Guantanamo, it will be something else. The President’s job is to protect and defend America, not win a perceived popularity contest. We should not be so naive.
Are we safer? Absolutely not. With the posture of a parent who would rather be friends with his/her children than be the grown-up who has to make difficult, sometimes extremely unpopular decisions, this Administration is doing nothing more than taunting our enemies with, “If you do that one more time I’m going to get really, really, really mad!”
Seeing the contrast between Cheney and Obama I couldn’t help but think the Big Dog was having to go off the porch to spank the Pup on the lawn trying to lick a porcupine and expecting not to get hurt.
Waterboarding? Torture? Worse is often done in hazings and initiation rights at high schools and colleges around the world. I don’t hear the media and political elite decrying these rituals (not saying I condone them, just stating a reality).
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.