Month: January 2009

by Patrick Appel
Greg Sargent thinks that Obama left wiggle room on torture.

by Patrick Appel
Geraghty has also responded to my post:

Appel writes, "I don’t see why American prisons are incapable of handing Gitmo detainees – they house domestic terrorists already." The options discussed so far are right next to a nuclear power plant in Southern California, right next to the facility for educational and training programs for foreign military students at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas*, and right in the middle of northern Charleston, South Carolina, three miles or so from an airport. If a detainee were to escape Guantanamo Bay, he would have the option of running to Cubans or sharks, and getting roughly the same warm welcome from both. A detainee who escapes from any of the U.S. sites is within quick reach of terror targets, potential hostages, means of escape, etc.

Chris is right to say, in the case of Ft. Leavenworth, that everyone should wait until the Pentagon has made its final assessment. But to address Geraghty’s point more generally: what about Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, one of the planners of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings? He is currently serving a life sentence without parole at a Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. Is he any less dangerous than the men we have at Guantanamo? I’ve researched prisons in the past; the most secure ones are comparable to what I know of Guantanamo.

A reader wrote earlier today that "if we bring these men into the justice system and treat them as the common criminals they are, we reduce their standing in the eyes of their peers, in the eyes of the international community — and in the eyes of America." That is exactly right. Geraghty instead seems to think that Guantanamo detainees have superhuman abilities. He writes:

…not all dangerous men are the same. It’s hard to picture militia members, the Crips, Bloods, or what have you doing something as extreme as, say, crashing a plane into the prison to faciliate [sic] an escape and/or provide martyrdom to their brethren.

For those who say, "Oh, these detainees will never escape, it would be maximum security," it happened from the prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Another breakout in an Afghan prison freed 400 captured Taliban. In Yemen, captured al-Qaeda broke out, possibly with help from the inside. We’ve seen captured al-Qaeda escape from prisons in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. And Morocco. An al-Qaeda plotter escaped from a Pakistani prison, and other attempts to break them out have been foiled.

It is one thing for terrorists to escape from prisons in the Middle East where security might be lax and where a significant number of al-Qaeda members and sympathizers live. But when was the last time terrorists broke out of prisons in France, England, Germany, or any other developed country? Of course extra precautions have to be taken, but suspected terrorists can be secured the same as any gang member. Geraghty needs to cut down on the 24.

He also offers this comparison:

Appel writes, "And how housing detainees in maximum security prisons impacts the American citizens residing nearby is beyond me." You would think one might be familiar with escapes of violent and in some cases, death-row criminals from high or maximum-security facilities in New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas (more than once), Virginia, Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Pennsylvania . . .

There are currently over two million prisoners in the United States. Last I checked, there are around 340 detainees at Guantanamo and only a few of those are high value detainees. Saying that these detainees might escape because a handful of the two million other prisoners the US holds have escaped is false equivalence to say the least.

by Patrick Appel
Joe Klein is upset:

…there has been a casual, slightly confused quality to these first hours of the Obama Administration. The executive order on torture needed to be accompanied by a strong, firm statement on the part of the President, making clear that the Army Field Manual is the operating standard now, and that the deviations from that standard in the last Administration were reprehensible.

Also needed was some clearer guidance on the economy. I know the Economic Team is working through the regime for the implementation of the next $350 billion of the bank bailout–but with the banking system teetering, and home foreclosures mounting, there was a need for a clear statement of defining principles–a headline, a soundbite, something for the worried people of the country to talk about at dinner tonight. Ditto for the stimulus package.

by Chris Bodenner

Geraghty responds:

(He says ‘the overwhelming majority of reader comments support the transfer.’ I count ten comments I would characterize as ‘yes’ to the transfer, and seven ‘no’…).

Readers can see for themselves, but I re-counted the nearly 60 comments left in the two articles, and nearly 70% (39 out of 57) are critical of NIMBY, and from a larger pool of people.  If Geraghty doesn’t define that as “overwhelming,” then it’s certainly a solid majority.

But seriously, this is quibbling, because my central point remains: the views within Leavenworth are much more complex than the “unanimous” declaration by its politicians.  Whether Ft. Leavenworth is able to meet the security demands of a dozen or so detainees, of course I don’t know, and the experts I’ve spoken with aren’t sure either.  The only fully-equipped expert is the Pentagon, which is currently conducting a formal review of the prison.  My only contention is that everyone should wait until the feasibility of the facility is settled before politicians — who may or may not have their own agendas — start speaking for their entire constituencies, and use fear-mongering rhetoric when doing so.

And no, Jim Geraghty, locals who object to the transfer aren’t “a bunch of ignorant yokels” (and good-faith skeptics like Patrick don’t hew to the “disapproving words of Le Monde“) — that’s just the kind of ad hominem, culture-war bait typical of NRO.

Geraghty rightly points out, as I have, that all the elected officials of Leavenworth adhere to NIMBY.  But then he immediately leaps to the conclusion that they fully “understand the complexities of detaining terrorists” (suspected terrorists, who’ve never been given a hearing, that is).  Yet forgive me when I hold an inherent skepticism of politicians.  For instance, one of Brownback’s central arguments — and one that he insists makes the entire debate moot — is that domestic and foreign prisoners cannot be held in the same military prison (Article 12 of the UCMJ).  Yet a military court ruled in 2007 that, in fact, they can, as long as they are “completely segregated.”  One month after that ruling, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, Chief Defense Counsel of Military Commissions (hardly an “Atlantic guy”), told Congress that the Ft. Leavenworth prison “is arranged in a pod system, much like the new Camp 6 down at Guantanamo which would make it very easy to segregate the detainees from the general population.”  So which “expert” is right?  Again, I don’t know for sure, but the debate is obviously more nuanced than Brownback would ever admit.

Instead of ceaselessly sniping back and forth, I’m going to leave it at this: Geraghty and I are actually making the same basic point.  He concludes, “[local] objections at the very least deserve a hearing before the transfer is finalized.”  Yes, I agree.

by Patrick Appel
Fallows doesn’t believe Geithner:

So by the standard of what the country needs right now, I would probably vote for Geithner’s confirmation as Treasury Secretary, if I were in a position to do so.

But I do not believe, and will never believe, that his failure to pay his own self-employment tax while at the IMF was an "oversight" or a "mistake." I have many many friends who have worked for this and similar organizations. I have myself over the years juggled the complexities of what is self-employment income and what is W-2 income and how to handle income from non-US sources  — and I have a lot less financial acumen than any Treasury Secretary aspirant should and must have. (Though I also use Turbo Tax!) Not a single person I have known from the IMF or similar bodies, not a one, believes that Geithner could have "overlooked" his need to pay US self-employment tax.

by Chris Bodenner
The AP:

Canada’s decision to legalize gay marriage has paved the way for polygamy to be legal as well, a defense lawyer said Wednesday as the two leaders of rival polygamous communities made their first court appearance. … The case is the first to test Canada’s polygamy laws. … "If (homosexuals) can marry, what is the reason that public policy says one person can’t marry more than one person?" said Suffredine, a former provincial lawmaker.

Kurtz’s long obsession with the "slippery slope" can be found here, here, and here.  Andrew addressed the issue back in 1997.

by Patrick Appel

Saletan really doesn’t like cellphones being used while driving.

Alcohol has been around for millennia. Cell phones have not. We evolved to function in the natural world, one setting at a time. Nature has never tested a species’s ability to function in two worlds at once. We’re now taking that test, and we’re flunking it. So here’s a message to the 45 states that let people drive while holding a phone, and to the 50 states that let allow driving while talking on a hands-free phone: Sober up.

Poulos differs.

by Chris Bodenner
"I, for one, would be proud if Fort Leavenworth took [detainees]. Recalling George W. Bush’s famous phrase, I say: Bring ’em on," – CJ Janovy, editor of The Pitch, a Kansas City newspaper.

by Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

I’m consistently bothered by the fact that in any discussion of how we treat suspected terrorists, everyone seems to forget about the "suspected" part. This is how you end up with people discussing whether or not terrorists deserve the benefits of due process, which misses the point entirely.

The whole reason for due process, is that until a person is tried in a just court, we have no way of actually knowing whether they are terrorists or not. Somehow the entire debate gets framed around whether or not these dangerous men are deserving of a specific process, the whole time forgetting that the very reason for the process is to make sure that innocent people are not unjustly punished or imprisoned. In fact, based on what I’ve read and heard, it appears likely that many of the Gitmo detainees are not actually dangerous at all, but were swept up in an over-zealous attempt to imprison anyone remotely related to al-Qaeda. I think it is important that this possibility stays as part of the conversation, and that we don’t simply treat this as a philosophical question of whether a murderer deserves a lawyer.