Month: January 2009

by Chris Bodenner
It’s worth noting that the NIMBY response to closing Guantanamo is not a partisan affair.  Here’s Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat and close ally of Obama:

"We’ve got to discontinue the use of Guantanamo Bay. … I think it gives the world a real question about how America values our democratic principles. It seems to violate everything our Founding Fathers said in the first place."

Yet, in the same sitting:

"I don’t have to want them in Kansas. Closing Guantanamo Bay doesn’t mean the prisoners come to the heartland of America."

At least Sen. Brownback (R-KS), the leading critic of a detainee transfer, has opposed closing Guantanamo in the first place.  Thus, he can’t really be accused of NIMBY, since he doesn’t want detainees in the backyard of any American.  Sebelius, on the other hand, seems to think that "everything our Founding Fathers said" is not worth risking political heat for her ’10 Senate run.  Either that, or she sincerely thinks the greatest military in the world can’t handle a few dozen prisoners.

by Patrick Appel
For the record, the text of today’s executive orders after the jump:

Executive Order regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees

Executive Order requires closure of the Guantanamo detention center no later than one year from the date of the Order. Closure of the facility is the ultimate goal but not the first step. The Order establishes a review process with the goal of disposing of the detainees before closing the facility.

The Order sets up an immediate review to determine whether it is possible to transfer detainees to third countries, consistent with national security. If transfer is not approved, a second review will determine whether prosecution is possible and in what forum. The preference is for prosecution in Article III courts or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but military commissions, perhaps with revised authorities, would remain an option. If there are detainees who cannot be transferred or prosecuted, the review will examine the lawful options for dealing with them. The Attorney General will coordinate the review and the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security as well as the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will participate.

The Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to seek international cooperation aimed at achieving the transfers of detainees

The Order directs the Secretary of Defense to halt military commission proceedings pending the results of the review.

Finally, the Executive Order requires that conditions of confinement at Guantanamo, until its closure, comply with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and all other applicable laws.

Executive Order regarding Detainee Policy

Executive Order creates a Special Task Force, co-chaired by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, to conduct a review of detainee policy going forward. The group will consider policy options for apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, or release of detainees. Other Task Force participants include the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Special Task Force must submit its report to the President within 180 days.

Executive Order regarding Interrogation

Executive Order revokes Executive Order 13440 that interpreted Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines. The Order also prohibits reliance on any Department of Justice or other legal advice concerning interrogation that was issued between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009.

The Order requires all departments and agencies to provide the ICRC access to detainees in a manner consistent with Department of Defense regulations and practice. It also orders the CIA to close all existing detention facilities and prohibits it from operating detention facilities in the future.

Finally, the Order creates a Special Task Force with two missions. The Task Force will conduct a review of the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines to determine whether different or additional guidance is necessary for the CIA. It will also look at rendition and other policies for transferring individuals to third countries to be sure that our policies and practices comply with all obligations and are sufficient to ensure that individuals do not face torture and cruel treatment if transferred. This Task Force will be led by the Attorney General with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence as co-Vice Chairs.

Presidential Memorandum on Review of the Detention of al-Marri

The President instructed the Attorney General, the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a review of the status of the detainee Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri who is currently held at the Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. This will ensure the same kind of legal and factual review is undertaken of the al-Marri case that is being undertaken of the Guantanamo cases.

by Chris Bodenner
The ad that scared a generation of kids off vegetables:

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I thought the Saletan quote was fascinating, and I agree with it almost entirely.

But I do think there is a difference between healing and curing, and I would say that curing is the empirical part, but that healing most definitely has a spiritual component and exists independently of a cure.

The most poignant example in my own life is my first wife, who died five years ago from cancer at the age of 31. She was never to be cured, but at the same time, the cancer gave great meaning to her days, and the time that she did have, and she focused on doing the things that brought the greatest meaning to her life, being a teacher and raising our daughter. There was vast healing in a time when there was to be no cure.

On the other hand, I can imagine circumstances when there is a physical cure, but the trauma of the disease or injury is such that the person never recovers emotionally and is chained by his or her fear.

Maybe I am just highlighting the same distinction Will is trying to make, naming curing the empirical, physical act of removing disease or recovering from injury while naming healing the broader, more emotional and spiritual transformation that disease and injury allow. Certainly, for us to be most whole, we need both and they are intertwined.

by Chris Bodenner
As Patrick noted, Geraghty insists that Obama, in deciding his detainee policy, "ought to consider the objections of Americans in places like Kansas, California, and South Carolina as much as it considers the objections of the editorial boards of Le Monde, Der Spiegel and the Guardian."

How about the Leavenworth Times?  After all, it’s the paper most likely to reflect the views of Kansans most affected by a detainee transfer to Ft. Leavenworth.  Let’s take a look:

"What a bunch of SPINELESS GUTLESS so called ‘Leaders’ we have in this town. … [M]ost of us who are former military in town are behind the [transfer], BECAUSE we know the capabilities of the USDB [prison] Staff to handle the situation."

"Incarcerating them in Gitmo without due process is one of the many reasons that the US is hated in the Middle East. The only way to change our image is to resolve those issues. We are a prison city, that’s what we do."

"I’d be very proud of my city for actually playing a role in the war. [It’s] not just in DC or NY. … We should rename it the ‘Global (minus Leavenworth) War on Terror.’"

And those aren’t the exception; the overwhelming majority of reader comments support the transfer.  And they weren’t written by bloggers like Geraghty and me, but rather a retired Army sergeant, a federal retiree who helped build the Army prison, and a retired Navy vet, respectively.  (I know because I contacted them for a magazine piece.)  Another example is my father, a Vietnam vet who retired at the fort and still lives in Leavenworth.  In fact, even excluding the fort, more than one-fifth of area residents have served in the military (double the national figure). 

Servicemembers, by definition, risk a bit of their own safety to protect the higher principles of our democracy.  So it’s no surprise that many veterans feel it’s their patriotic duty to help tackle the detainee problem (particularly since Ft. Leavenworth has the only maximum-security prison in the military, and the area — home to four major prisons — has dealt with some of the most dangerous inmates of the past century, such as the terrorist who rented the truck used in the first WTC attack.)

So while Geraghty suggests that Obama is ignoring local politicians, those politicians need to listen more closely to their own constituents.  The local debate, at least in Leavenworth, is far more nuanced than NIMBY.

by Patrick Appel

As told by someone who has never see it:

From Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

by Patrick Appel
Hilzoy makes a smart additional point about Obama’s executive orders on Gitmo and interrogations:

…it’s…worth noting Obama’s claim that he wants to win the war on terror "on our terms". One of the maddening aspects of the Bush administration’s policies in this area was that they so consistently accepted al Qaeda’s terms instead of creating their own. This was not just morally repellent, but stupid: in addition to sacrificing a whole lot of good will throughout the world, it made our actions a lot more predictable, and a lot easier to take advantage of.

Al Qaeda could never have destroyed our commitment to liberty, human rights, and the rule of law by itself. It could only hope that we would respond unthinkingly and do the dirty work ourselves. We obliged them, and in so doing did a lot more damage to ourselves than al Qaeda could ever have dreamed of doing.

by Patrick Appel

A reader counters Avent:

I think far more worrisome is the geopolitical unrest we will see in countries that do not have the money — the GDP per captia — to aggressively adapt their societies to climate change. Think of the desert communities plagued with little to no rainfall now without the means to acquire more secure water supplies. Or coastal communities with shores at or below sea level, similar to the Netherlands, but without the means to develop complex levee infrastructures to mitigate a rising sea levels.

A warming planet is far too slow, and the effects of carbon emissions much to decentralized and diffuse, where negative consequences of fossil combustion happen far from the fuel burning itself. No, eco-terrorism won’t happen under this scenario, at least not in any widespread way. Rather, it will be the billions people living in areas where negative effects of climate change will push them to more desperate brinks. That’s the real problem. And that’s why climate change is a moral issue, and not just a scientific, political, and economic concern.

by Chris Bodenner
After railing against Jay Z and Young Jeezy for lowering the political discourse, O’Reilly tells Dennis Miller:

"I didn’t like the line in [Obama’s] speech…about how we don’t have to compromise our values to protect ourselves.  I think sometimes we do.  I think sometimes we have to be realistic and do things that aren’t Army-Field-Manual polite.  We can’t give the Lazy-E-Boys to the captured terrorists.  We can’t give them the iced tea and wind chimes.  And I think that was oversimplifying, and kind of a cheap shot at the Bush administration. … [Liberals] would torture the hell out of Bush if they could, can you imagine?"

"Iced tea and wind chimes," after the jump: