I.
Barack Obama has signed executive orders (i) closing Guantanamo (within a year), ending the deeply flawed military commission system, and reinstating habeas corpus to so-called enemy combatants; and (ii) ending torture by reinstating the Army Field Manual as the sole unified standard for interrogation of prisoners. This is good, though as Glenn Greenwald argues, one of the most crucial issues now facing the Obama administration regarding our legacy of torture is whether “tainted” evidence — i.e., evidence obtained by means of torture — will be allowed in trials of detainees deemed “too dangerous to release.”
As Greenwald puts it, interpreting Obama’s claim that we need to create “a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up”:
There are detainees who the U.S. may not be able to convict in a court of law. Why not? Because the evidence that we believe establishes their guilt was obtained by torture, and it is therefore likely inadmissible in our courts (torture-obtained evidence is inadmissible in all courts in the civilized world; one might say it’s a defining attribute of being civilized). But Obama wants to detain them anyway — even though we can’t convict them of anything in our courts of law. So before he can close Guantanamo, he wants a new, special court to be created — presumably by an act of Congress — where evidence obtained by torture (confessions and the like) can be used to justify someone’s detention and where, presumably, other safeguards are abolished. That’s what he means when he refers to “creating a process.”
Amazingly, when discussing the same topic, Obama vowed that “we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.” How? By creating a new court just for accused Islamic radicals that allows us to use confessions and other evidence that we obtained through torture? That sounds like exactly the same “message about our values” that we’ve been sending.
One should say, as Greenwald does, that it’s not entirely certain that this is necessarily what Obama means by not releasing “people who are intent on blowing us up,” but rather that Obama hasn’t yet clarified what he intends to do with those who cannot be convicted in a court of law — because their confessions were elicited by means of torture — but whom he nonetheless (without trial) presumes to know definitely absolutely want to blow us up.
II.
In other news, the AP reports on Obama’s first ordered Predator drone strike inside Pakistan:
Suspected U.S. missiles killed 18 people on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border Friday, security officials said, the first attacks on the al-Qaida stronghold since President Barack Obama took office. At least five foreign militants were among those killed in the strikes by unmanned aircraft in two parts of the frontier region, an intelligence official said without naming them. There was no information on the identities of the others.
Pakistan’s leaders had expressed hope Obama might halt the strikes, but few observers expected he would end a tactic that U.S. officials say has killed several top al-Qaida operatives and is denying the terrorist network a long-held safe haven.
The United States has staged more than 30 missile strikes inside Pakistan since August last year — a barrage seen as a sign of frustration in Washington over Islamabad’s efforts to curb militants that the U.S. blames for violence in Afghanistan and fears could be planning attacks on the West.
The Times of London adds:
Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven “foreigners” — a term that usually means al-Qaeda — but locals also said that three children lost their lives.
I post this story to ask, simply: do we think this is okay, bombing inside the territory of a country with which we are not at war? If so, why? Was George W. Bush justified in initiating this practice? Obama seems to have decided that he was.
Is it true that Obama permanently ended the military commissions system? I had heard that the system was merely suspended so Obama’s people could have a chance to review all the cases currently underway.
Everything I’ve heard about the difficulty of shutting down Guantanamo is regarding those detainees who (a) can’t be convicted of any crime for reasons including the fact that they were tortured, but (b) are definitely intent on blowing us up, according to Obama Administration officials. Should they be let go? If so, where should they be released? Into America? Into some foreign country? If they are released into a foreign country, which one, and do we need that country’s permission? When people say these are incredibly difficult questions to answer, I believe them. If we detain them, do we detain them in America? And if so, how are we supposed to detain them legally?
Regarding Pakistan, Obama argued early on that if he knows of Al Qaida members in Pakistan, and Pakistan won’t act to eliminate them, Obama will. So this is another campaign promise he is keeping. Was Obama wrong to make that promise? How, exactly, do we fight Al Qaida?
Comment by Ian — January 23, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
The executive order says, “The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.”
So it’s not necessarily the case that Obama has permanently ended the Military Commissions. He could theoretically reinstate them after the review. Based on Obama’s statements, I assume that any reconstituted commission for people captured in the future would follow the Geneva Convention. The issue does remain whether people who are in custody who we’ve decided are “definitely intent” on blowing us up will be tried in courts that allow evidence obtained by torture.
My view: If the only evidence you have of criminal activity/intent is derived from torture, I am suspicious of how certain we should be about the guilt of that person. Our civilian courts have proven perfectly capable of convicting people for their crimes, including terrorism. If you can’t make a case against someone, you have to let them go. That’s true of the worst mafia hitman in the world whom “everyone knows” is guilty, and likewise with these people.
I know that Obama’s bombing of Pakistan is consistent with his previously stated position. I’m asking whether we agree with this position. I tend to think this sort of bombing is wrong and — even if you don’t buy the argument that we simply don’t have any right to bomb another country — counterproductive. It would be terrible if Obama became a Lyndon Johnson-like figure: someone whose attempt to push through a slightly more progressive social agenda is dwarfed by a general — and hopeless — war against Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’re at a point in history when we can say no to escalation in the region.
Putting aside the question of justification and the non-American civilians who have and will inevitably be killed by such actions, do we feel that this first Obama bombing — that has killed (it is now reported) 20 people, at least three of whom seem to have been children — has made America safer? I am not confident that the answer is yes.
Comment by Lee — January 24, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
It is so blissful to have arrived at a point where we can debate the merits of Obama’s foreign policy, rather than Bush’s foreign policy — since I certainly believe that Obama’s foreign policy is far, far superior to Bush’s.
I don’t buy the idea that Obama’s military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan could do political damage to his presidency that even comes close to the political damage the Vietnam War did to Lyndon Johnson. The Vietnam War hurt Lyndon Johnson because (a) tens of thousands of Americans soldiers were killed with many more wounded (b) there was a draft (c) the justification for our being in Vietnam didn’t hold up under scrutiny, and (d) American policymakers were caught lying to the American people over and over again.
We have no reason to believe, as far as I know, that Obama will lie to the American people about the war in Afghanistan. The justification for our being there — that we must destroy Al Qaida, which was responsible for killing thousands of Americans on September 11th and wants to kill more Americans — is a powerful one, and the idea that we “have no business there” won’t carry a lot of weight as long as Americans remember Sept. 11th. There is no draft, and American casualties will probably remain very low.
The likelihood that Obama’s domestic success will be tragically overshadowed by collossal failure in Afghanistan and Pakistan is minimal, in my view. Even if Obama adds more troops to Afghanistan, the planned withdrawal of far more troops from Iraq will nevertheless convey to the American people and to the world that Obama is reducing our involvement in fighting in the Middle East — not escalating it.
Furthermore, I don’t agree that Obama is trying to push a “slightly” more progressive agenda. Perhaps I should pretend to agree with that, as Obama’s ability to move this country in a progressive direction will probably be easier if he is seen as a centrist with only “slight” leanings to the left. But the truth is that Obama wants to make health care available and affordable to every American who wants it. That is a progressive goal, and it’s a massive goal, and if Obama acheives this goal it will be a once-in-a-generation accomplishment for the left and for the country. I suppose Obama is only “slightly” to the left when you compare him to Karl Marx — but compared to George Bush and conservatives like him all over this country who supported privatizing social security, Obama is a serious progressive.
But the crucial question remains: “Do we feel that this first Obama bombing — that killed (it is now reported) 20 people, at least three of whom seem to have been children — has made America safer?”
I also am not confident that the answer is yes. There is no question that such a bombing has costs: the story of innocent children being killed by American weapons will be used successfully by terrorists to recruit, and those who directly grieve over the loss of the children will probably hate America forever with a passion. This attack presumably yeilded benefits as well — or at least, somebody somewhere must think the attack yeilded benefits.
I don’t think we know enough to know whether this attack was counterproductive, because we don’t know whether it was productive. Who were the victims, and how dangerous were they? What was accomplished by this attack? These are questions to which we should certainly demand answers.
But to say we should “say no to escalation in the region,” to say this attack is “wrong,” leaves me wondering: If our current approach toward Al Qaida is wrong, what is the right approach? I have long believed that Al Qaida members should be treated as criminals (rather than as our enemies in a conventional war), but this doesn’t answer the question of how we should handle a situation where Al Qaida is hiding in Pakistan, training and recruiting and planning attacks on America. Should we leave it to the Pakistanis to go after Al Qaida? What if they refuse to do so? Should we simply do nothing in that case? Should we try to impose sanctions on Pakistan for failing to crack down on the terrorists there?
It’s important to question the assumptions that drive our current policy — but it is irresponsible to criticize without alternatives. How do we protect Americans from another Al Qaida attack?
Comment by Ian — January 25, 2009 @ 12:58 am
I.
“I don’t buy the idea that Obama’s military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan could do political damage to his presidency that even comes close to the political damage the Vietnam War did to Lyndon Johnson.”
Didn’t Iraq do massive amounts of political damage to Bush? By 2007, when the casualties began to mount to intolerable levels — nowhere near Vietnam levels — Obama managed to leverage the unpopularity of the war into votes.
If Obama escalates bombing in Pakistan, arousing further hatred and resentment against the US, resulting in further terrorism against us and our forces, resulting in further escalation — why couldn’t Obama’s reelection in 2012 be imperiled?
II.
As for “slight” progress vs. progress, it’s true it’s a matter of perspective — from the perspective of Genghis Kahn, Bush is something like Martin Luther King.
But Obama has never concealed his moderate political commitments. Is he more progressive than almost all Republicans? Yes, he is, no doubt. Is he as progressive as the average liberal — not even a left-wing — Canadian politician in the Liberal Party? Depends on the issue, but I’d say he’s less progressive than progressives in most developed countries.
Will his policies nonetheless help countless Americans? Absolutely, which is part of the reason I want him to succeed in expanding health care coverage, limiting greenhouse emissions, and the rest. Would I prefer him to adopt even more progressive policies? Yes, because I think more progressive policies (single payer health care or national health care; a carbon tax; living wage laws; etc) are better policies.
III.
A better policy for Pakistan — and for protecting Americans more generally from the very serious threat of terrorism — is to change our whole approach to the Mideast and Afghanistan/Pakistan. We’re often correctly perceived as propping up brutal dictatorships (like Musharif in Pakistan) and using our power and wealth to hurt ordinary people in those regions.
If we stop inciting hatred against us — giving our genuine enemies helpful propaganda gifts — I believe we’ll reduce support and sympathy for terrorism. Moderates in the region will have more room within which to influence their societies politically. This is no guarantee that we’ll be safe 100% of the time, but then the policy of bombing inside nuclear-armed Pakistan without its permission — angering its people greatly — doesn’t guarantee anything either. We can never ensure total security because we live in an open society, but empowering hardliners in Pakistan seems like a highly dangerous course of action.
I think our problems in the Middle East and Afghanistan are political in nature, not technical/military.
IV.
In sum, let me make a prediction (which is rare for me, but why not): if Obama continues escalating the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, terrorism against us and our forces will increase, we will find ourselves in a Soviet-style quagmire in Caucuses, America’s popularity in the region and the world will continue its decline, Obama’s current high levels of popularity internationally and domestically will decline, and his support-worthy social agenda will be harder to make a reality. 2012 will go from being a slam dunk reelection — a huge advertisement for good government and liberalism — to a hard-fought contest.
Comment by Lee — January 25, 2009 @ 5:29 am
I.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Obama’s chances to win reelection will diminish significantly if there is a terrorist attack within the United States during Obama’s first term. Bush and his supporters are constantly boasting that we haven’t had another terrorist attack since Sept. 11 — if we do have another terrorist attack under Obama, the lesson (rightly or wrongly) will be that Bush’s policies kept us safe, and Obama’s didn’t. This would be disasterous, and of course Obama’s first priority as president is to protect Americans from a terrorist attack. That said, I believe the American people want Obama to withdraw responsible from Iraq, and fight the war in Afghanistan “wisely,” as Obama has put it. Some may predict a war there turning into a Vietnam-style quagmire with tens of thousands of American casualties, but I just don’t imagine that Pakistan/Afghanistan will get to that point. In any event, there’s a big difference between that hypothetical situation and a single bombing of Al Qaida in which three children were killed.
There are two issues going on here: whether the missile attack made us safer, and whether Obama’s decision to continue fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan will help or hurt his popularity with the American people. These are two separate issues.
III.
I see the logic behind (a) no longer propping up brutal dictatorships (b) making sure our power and wealth doesn’t hurt ordinary people in the region (c) avoiding giving propoganda gifts to the enemy (d) no longer bombing inside Pakistan without permission. These may be wise ideas, but they all amount to NOT doing things, rather than doing things. If we simply disengage from this part of the world and hope that Al Qaida will simply evaporate, we run the risk that Al Qaida will launch another successful attack — and then Americans will point at your list of things we didn’t do and say, “See, we stopped doing those things, and the result was another attack.”
You may be right that our problems in the Middle East are political, but that means we need an aggressive political solution.
You write, “This is no guarantee that we’ll be safe 100% of the time, but then the policy of bombing inside nuclear-armed Pakistan without its permission — angering its people greatly — doesn’t guarantee anything either. We can never ensure total security because we live in an open society, but empowering hardliners in Pakistan seems like a highly dangerous course of action.”
It’s true that we can never ensure total security, but president Obama’s task is to keep us 100% safe during his years in office. The idea that Obama should sacrifice some measure of immediate security (by allowing Al Qaida to train, recruit, plan, etc. inside Pakistan with impunity) in hopes that it will yeild long-term benefits is just a matter of political suicide for Obama’s whole approach. The quickest was to put a right-wing Republican back in the White House is to give the impression that Democrats aren’t 100% committed to keeping the American people safe.
Comment by Ian — January 25, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Do we give up the fight against Al Qaida and hope that the goodwill this engenders will cause Al Qaida to disappear? If we decide to be active, rather than passive, in the fight against Al Qaida, what should our approach be?
I believe it’s very good that Obama has chosen George Mitchell to be an envoy to the Middle East, because resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would do more for American security than anything else.
Comment by Ian — January 25, 2009 @ 1:23 pm