NYT, “Post-Guantánamo: A New Detention Law?”:
As a presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama sketched the broad outlines of a plan to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba: try detainees in American courts and reject the Bush administration’s military commission system.
Now, as Mr. Obama moves closer to assuming responsibility for Guantánamo, his pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers. They include where Guantánamo’s detainees could be held in this country, how many might be sent home and a matter that people with ties to the Obama transition team say is worrying them most: What if some detainees are acquitted or cannot be prosecuted at all?
That concern is at the center of a debate among national security, human rights and legal experts that has intensified since the election. Even some liberals are arguing that to deal realistically with terrorism, the new administration should seek Congressional authority for preventive detention of terrorism suspects deemed too dangerous to release even if they cannot be successfully prosecuted.
“You can’t be a purist and say there’s never any circumstance in which a democratic society can preventively detain someone,†said one civil liberties lawyer, David D. Cole, a Georgetown law professor who has been a critic of the Bush administration.
Ah. So, indefinite detention when undertaken by a Republican President after an attack that has been preceded by a declaration of war against us — a war undertaken by an enemy with no national affiliations who uses asymmetrical warfare and operates under conditions that would, in a sane world, deny it Geneva Convention protections — is an affront to fundamental principles of liberty! But when a progressive who spent his campaign deriding such an affront to our core values is set to assume the role of Commander-in-Chief, suddenly the calculus takes on a bit more nuance
Argues Ed Morrissey:
[…] what happens when the incoming Obama administration decides to continue indefinite detention and back away from Feinstein’s bill on interrogation techniques? Not only will the MoveOn/Code Pink crowd utterly revolt, but it will force a re-evaluation of the Bush administration’s efforts to keep this nation safe from attack  and the success he had in doing so.
Perhaps so. But I think any such revolt will be essentially toothless and perfunctory, and that Obama’s administration will suffer no ill-effects from staying with a policy of detention that has kept the US safe since 911.
And this is because many of the “civil liberties” absolutists who sprung up in the wake of the Bush Administration’s attempts to navigate new challenges presented to traditional prisoner detention (given the nature of the enemy, and the difficulty in giving a concrete, corporeal outline to the “enemy”) were nothing more than political opportunists whose first and primary concern was regaining power.
Attacking Bush’s so-called civil liberties violations was but a means to an end.
Of course, if I’m wrong — and certainly there are, among the civil libertarians opposed to the Bush policies a number of true believers — than I suspect we’ll see much of the outrage mitigated by a press that will suddenly rediscover the dangers of releasing back into circulation those enemy combatants whose express goal is to kill Americans, and who will view our capitulation as a sign that our system can indeed be gained, and that our Constitution is, in fact, a suicide pact.
Ironically, should an Obama administration choose to adopt many of the trappings of the Bush security plan, we will see the right — after a bit of predictable razzing over “the hypocrisy!” — concede that Obama has made the proper call, and that this does indeed rehabilitate Bush administration policies (or, at the very least, suggest that the problem is much more complex than certain best selling authors whose blog posts have been read into the Congressional Record would have us believe).
Meanwhile, the leftwing pundits will either remain silent, offer a few perfunctory recriminations as well (before letting the issue drop), or else highlight the few cosmetic changes made to the policies that will be designed to give Obama and his supporters some sort of claim to reform.
The punchline to this setup is so obvious, I’ve made it simply be pointing out that it exists.
Not going to happen. Well, not in my lifetime. With our media? I’ll have what Ed is smoking.
All is good when it comes from the lips of Teh One.
Has anyone bothered to see what The Gleen(s) have to say about this?
There will be no lefty outrage if O! keeps Bush’s polices to the letter. That would require a moral compass that does not point due left at all times.
I don’t think hypocrisy is an adequate word for the left’s moral posturing during the Bush years if they retain his policies. I’m not sure what the right word is though. They have engaged in a perverse blend of frivolity by virtue of their fundamentally unserious nature and malicious political opportunism as well as being rather treasonous – not a word I use lightly – in their efforts to hurt our standing in the world. One could argue, perhaps persuasively, that the Bush administration did a rather good job of that on their own, but I care a hell of a lot less what foreigners think than I do about the cynicism and bad faith of the left in this country which emboldened them.
Doesn’t this go back to the argument of whether ’tis better to fight terrorism as a police matter vs. a military one?
If O embraces the policing strategy, then it becomes less tenable to hold prisoners based on future criminal intentions, and they’ll be likely released on that basis. If it gets ruled to be a military matter, then they can be held at least until the cessation of hostilities.
So far I’m not seeing a commitment to either interpretation, only a desire to close the joint with a concurrent viewing of the ‘jailing for future criminality’ as an ….interesting POV which might come in handy.
Why I am shocked, Shocked! at the assertion that O! might go back on one of the central rhetorical cudgels of his campaign…
Of course, that’s not to say his position mightn’t evolve in a subtle, nuanced way…
My only question is, when do we get to start referring to him as Chimeror ObamaHitler..?
And, while there may be some of the code-pinkos that will be outraged! by this, the press will provide cover-as ususal…
I mean, not only has Chris Tingle declared it his quixotic job to make this administration work, But Rachel Maddow has already adopted a change in tone to her intellectual diatrabes; what once were people, who needed respect and empathy in keeping with doctrinaire multiculturalism, now are suddenly Islamic extremists who need to know that we, as a nation, present a united front to all who would intend to do us harm…
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling…
Best Wishes
The chirping you hear is the crickets. The media, the congressional democrats and academia will be silent about this, and dozen other things that they used to complain bitterly about.
Now that THE ONE is President, presidential power is a blessing not a curse. There can be no issue about abuses of presidential power during the four years commencing 2009-JAN-20.
This would surprise anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Can’t we recall those vast “Anti-War” protests from the late 90s when Clinton was boming the shit out of a harmless Eastern European country that could never pose a threat to America? All those “not in our name” bumper-stickers?
This and other free passes are brought to you by the letter (D).
(BTW, I fully supported and approved of the Kosovo actions, but that’s because I’m an nasty imperialist warmonger. What are the Left’s excuses?)
(sigh, boming = bombing)
Preview is not my friend.
This and other free passes are brought to you by the letter (D).
This is, was, and always will be the driving force behind all of their mendoucheity.
But then it’s not really post-Guantanamo I don’t think if all you do is change the place you stick the terrorist people and add a little window dressing. Bush is getting a kick out of this jagoff Baracky guy I bet.
Did Obama choose a dog yet? FOR THE CHILDREN
Derek
Missile defense O! flipped?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859393,00.html
Every once in a while I question Jeff’s take on certain situations, and then I read over at Balloon Juice their take on a Christian group selling a 5.5′ cross that’s lit with white Christmas lights. Simple thing, you know – A plastic cross wrapped with white lights on a base.
These geniuses consider that a lit cross is a Klan symbol. Because white non-flickering lights is the same as a cross burning, donchaknow.
.
if the msm does cry or whine or get off the barack track
a few white powdered letters will set ’em straight
i’m looking at you tom brokaw!
it’s too late for your close-up- little russ
[that was mean!- not terrorist mean-but mean]
i put a plastic cross on the dashboard of my car once
i’m pretty sure it saved some dirty filthy hippie
hitchhikers lives
cuz i drive on the edge-baby
T for tolerance
[mrs. torrance]
can i have a timeout/ or just put me in the penalty box…
someone who never got a penalty cuz he was so cool was a guy
who played for the bbruins…
[sorry 4 the silly]
True conservatives like John Cole must protect against potential offenses and outrages — which are always intended, where Christianists are involved, albeit often available only in coded language.
Preemptive strikes against Christianists, you might call it. Like a version of the Bush Doctrine, only not a yucky one, where those looking to kill you are attacked. But rather against people who you know will find your position so strange and perplexing that they won’t even begin to fight back.
It’s a form of bullying by a crowd that, on the individual level, would be bitchslapped like the little screeching nothings they are.
“little screeching nothings”–OUTSTANDING name for a rock band.
I’m guessing we will see a few minor, cosmetic and symbolic changes in detention and surveillance policies. Enough to convince those who want to be convinced, and who never looked at the actual constitutionality of the previous policies, that everything is OK now, and no one has to worry about those posses of black-masked jackbooted thugs that have been rounding up Arabs and war protesters for the last 8 years. Meanwhile, operationally not much will change, except probably a prisoner transfer from Guantanamo to somewhere else. Enough to mollify Gleen and Obama brand-loyalists, but probably not for Radley Balko and other Reason left-libertarians. I think Balko and folks like Cory Doctorow and the Boing-Boing collective will be interesting barometers. I trust Balko to look through the cult of Personality at the actual policies, while I’m not so sure about the ability of Doctorow, Barlow, and much of the EFF crowd to maintain their ideological purity in the face of The One’s healing presence.
[…] Jeff G@Protein Wisdom: I think any such revolt [against Obama by Move On et al, if he continues Guantanamo and indefinite detention] will be essentially toothless and perfunctory, and that Obama’s administration will suffer no ill-effects from staying with a policy of detention that has kept the US safe since 911. […]
You seem to think the left’s opposition to Guantanamo was always based in some principle or other. It wasn’t. The reason they won’t care is, outside of a tiny percentage, they never did. All the outrage had its roots in BDS, and with Bush gone the furor will dissipate.
You seem to think the left’s opposition to _____________ was always based in some principle or other. It wasn’t.
The reason they won’t care is, outside of a tiny percentage, they never did.
Principles of convenience have been a hallmark of the “progressive” disease. Sexual harassment is an issue, until, of course it’s just about sex.
Campaign financing is an issue, until, of course, until it’s figured out how to turn off the AVS.
Military registration and service are a big issue, until, of course, it’s not at all important.
Academic achievement and grades are the benchmark for qualification, until, of course, they aren’t necessary.
Saddam Hussein is the gravest threat to the world, regime change is necessary, he is a threat to hand off weapons of mass murder to terrorists, unitl, of course, he is none of those things.
Principles of convenience, Eric…are the order of the day….when you have the “progressive” disease.
T for tolerance
T for cat.
This is a good example of what finally woke me up regarding progressivism, and is why I think the right/left schism is only going to get worse in the next few years. My epiphany was when I actually thought about a good friend and adament nannystater who had one of those I Love My Country But Fear My Government bumpersticker. I realized that if he got the all powerful government he wanted it would have to always be that way, that if the opposition party took over with that much power it would be disasterous for the other side and that is exactly what is happening. How many of what is perceived as Bush outrages can be traced back to Carter/Clinton origins?
We are seeing the same thing now with Obama, all of a sudden a strong, dare I say unilateral, executive will be a good thing. It will probably even be granted more power, and then the next time a Republican gets elected the shitstorm will be even worse.
In other words B Moe, politics is a high-stakes game for proggs because they believe it ought to be.
They really should have stuck to tiddlywinks. I know I’d be happier if they had.
But, whatever the left says about how it’s all good now, we can still call them liars and stuff?
Absolutely so.
Aside from the fact that a large portion of the left did oppose the 1999 Kosovo War, the fact of the matter is that it was far less costly in terms of money, resources, and human lives than the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Anyways, I suppose there is a grain of truth in the thesis that the media criticizes Democrats less for aggressive foreign policies. Clinton got away with arming numerous brutal regimes and bombing at least four different countries with barely any negative coverage. Clinton’s brand of U.S. imperialism was also much more marketable to the American public as well as U.S. allies. Perhaps memories of the Clinton era is what caused portions of the U.S. ruling class to side with Obama. They want to go back to a time when U.S. interests could be promoted with more subtlety and less international criticism. They may also see the Iraq War as a net loss for U.S. interests.
Either way, there are lots of leftists out there who will be more than willing to criticize Obama for continuing or initiating policies they consider to be imperialistic.
Aside from the fact that a large portion of the left did oppose the 1999 Kosovo War…
Unless you got a link to some hippy protesters with a Giant Clinton Puppet Head it doesn’t count.
“..or else highlight the few cosmetic changes made to the policies that will be designed to give Obama and his supporters some sort of claim to reform.”
I’m bullish on fig leaves through June 2009. After that it gets a bit murky.
They want to go back to a time when U.S. interests could be promoted with more subtlety and less international criticism.
I remember that time. Then 9/11 happened, and the world changed.
I imagine you want to quit bathing, grow hair, and get high like in the old days too, but you know people would point and laugh.
Like this
*points*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA