The Trouble with Closing Gitmo

In one of his first acts upon assuming office, President Obama ordered the Guantanamo Bay prison closed within a year. The detainees there were to be…well, that’s still a little unclear. The President seems to have run into the same problem as his predecessor. President George W. Bush also wanted to close Gitmo, but said, essentially, that no one could figure out what to do with the people there. Apparently, President Obama’s staff decided they were much smarter. If only the lawyers had bothered to read a little law, first.

Let’s run a thought experiment. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, we all decide the folks at Guantanamo are all prisoners of war. That gives them certain protections, but also establishes that they may be held until hostilities are over. Hostilities, quite obviously, are not over in Afghanistan or Iraq. A reasonable person could argue that hostilities in Afghanistan may last for decades.

Can we keep these people in prison for decades? Without trial? Without any right of habeas corpus?

Um, yes. That’s the whole point of being a POW. You aren’t a criminal, but you will be held until the war is over. It’s also possible to be held by a neutral party (think Switzerland in WWII)—who has an obligation to inter you until the war is over.

But, you say, this war may last generations? Correct—that’s exactly what former President Bush said. It's not our fault that the enemy decided on a strategy that could take generations.

Wait, though—Bush argued that the detainees weren’t POW’s. They were “unlawful combatants.” What’s that about?

Well, the problem is that there are combatants and noncombatants. People in uniform are combatants. They have a right under international law to engage in combat, and to kill when operating under the lawful orders of their nation-state. When they kill, it isn’t a crime. (It goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia.)

Civilians are non-combatants. They have a right to be protected, and combatants must conduct themselves in a way that avoids unnecessary harm to non-combatants. But, here’s the key: non-combatants do NOT have the right to kill. They may NOT participate in combat. If they do so, not only do they forfeit their protections, but they may be considered criminals, and charged with war crimes.

The problem arises when people who wouldn’t normally have any right to be combatants decide to take up arms. The Geneva Conventions acknowledge this possibility, but they don’t really explain what to do. But, just ask the question logically—if a person with the right to engage in combat can be legally held for decades (as a POW), then why would a person with a questionable right to engage in combat get more consideration? That just doesn’t follow.

Bush tried to solve that problem with war crimes tribunals, specifically authorized by Congress, as specifically directed by the Judicial branch. The reason the tribunals don’t look exactly like US court trials is because they aren’t US court trials. Sorry to break it to the lawyers, but there is more to the US Code than Title 18. Specifically, there’s Title 10, which governs military operations. (There’s also Title 33, but we’ll talk about that next time.)

President Obama has stopped the tribunals, and is insisting that the detainees can be given trials under the US criminal system. Lots of folks have argued we should simply give them trials. Okay, then here’s my question…

What do you do when the jury finds a detainee “not guilty”? That’s the point of a trial, right? You have to consider that the accused might be “not guilty.” If you don’t seriously consider that, then you are engaged in a show trial.

If you start with the premise that the detainees are unlawful combatants, then “not guilty” simply means they had a right to engage in combat operations. They are not guilty of war crimes. That makes them POW’s. But, POW’s may still be held until hostilities are over, after which they will be repatriated. This isn’t a game; those are the rules of armed conflict. If you start with the premise that the detainees are ordinary criminals, then “not guilty” means you let them go. Immediately. Are we seriously considering that?

Suddenly Bush's argument doesn't seem so stupid, does it? It almost seems like he really thought about the problem. Maybe he shouldn't be the only one.

"A Time for Crisis"

What an interesting Freudian slip. At least, I assume it was a slip. I certainly hope it was.

At an address to the U.S. Conference of Mayors on March 20th, President Obama thanked the mayors for indicating they wanted to cooperate with his plans, and warned them that taxpayers were skeptical, particularly since federal money had been “frittered away before.” He insisted that taxpayers wanted to see their money spent “efficiently”—interesting that he chose that word, instead of “effectively.” Efficiently can imply ‘without waste,’ but it can also imply ‘without delay.’ Even the ‘without waste’ interpretation only suggests government overhead costs should be minimized. It certainly doesn’t imply spending money on the right things—but that really isn’t surprising, since at the Democrat’s Congressional retreat, the President insisted that stimulus is all about spend, spend, spend.

But, then came the interesting turn of phrase. “There’s little room for error here, especially in a time for crisis.” For? Not a time of crisis? For.

If President Obama was not so renowned an orator, I might just accept it as a misspeak. If he weren’t on a teleprompter, I could accept it as stream of consciousness. But, then there’s that nagging little phrase from Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” And Obama does use a teleprompter. So, I have to wonder—what did the prepared remarks say? And regardless of that answer, what does it tell us that he called this, intentionally or not, “A time for crisis”?

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I can add. 2+2 usually equals 4. If it doesn’t, then there’s another number in there somewhere. A lot of commentators, on both sides of the aisle, have been calling on the President to stop being so negative, that he’s making the situation worse. Obviously, the left thinks he’s just making a newcomer’s mistake; the right thinks he’s doing it deliberately.

But, as I look at the arguments from both sides, I can’t help but wonder if, just maybe, Obama agrees with his chief of staff—and that some of this hyperbole really is part of a plan. It hasn't happened yet, but I predict this phrase will come back to bite him.

Who Wants the President to Fail?

So, now we discover that, in August 2006, 51% of Democrats polled in a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll wanted President Bush to fail. Let's be clear: the poll said they did not want him to succeed. That's the same thing--no mealy-mouthing here. They wanted President Bush to fail.

Now, why the mock outrage at Rush Limbaugh's statement that he wants President Obama to fail? Why the lies (see my earlier blog post) that claimed Limbaugh wanted the economy to fail? Love him or hate him, Rush has a website with transcripts of his show. It's at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/, in case you've been living in a cave. I've checked--he was crystal clear, and anyone claiming he wanted the economy to fail...IS LYING. Not mischaracterizing, not spinning, not taking out of context. Lying. He believes the President's policies will wreck the country, so he doesn't want them to succeed. You can completely disagree with his opinion, but let's be realistic--which of President Obama's policies would you expect any conservative to support? For all the bloggers and posters saying, "You shut up! We won!" I would ask a simple question--was that really your opinion in 2004 when the Republicans won? Really? Really?

Oh, the reporters didn't actually check the transcript, they just believed the other reports? Then they are incompetent, and should be fired.

I'm serious. Fired. The First Amendment exists for a reason--because accurate reporting is critical for citizens to know what's going on with their government. As a reporter, you don't get a pass for being lazy. If I can check it out, so can you. I have a day job. If you don't have time to check it, then you don't have time to write your story.

There Is Some Bad Publicity

I was watching Fox News Channel’s Glen Beck Show today, and discovered that, actually, there is such a thing as bad publicity. On this blog, I’ve picked on President Obama, majority leader Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator McCain, all on serious issues. Still, that’s not completely balanced, so this is too good to pass up.

It seems Senator Thad (pronounce the “th”) Cochran (R-MS)’s office didn’t want Mr. Beck to use an email they sent him, and they called up just before his show started and began yelling at one of his staff—challenging them that they better not dare call out the Senator for an earmark he inserted in the $400 billion bill just passed. (That would be the bill David Axelrod insists doesn’t count against President Obama’s “no earmarks” pledge, because it should’ve been passed under President Bush. Oh. I guess Mr. Axelrod didn’t get President Obama’s memo that a President—ANY President—doesn’t run Congress. They’re co-equal branches, Mr. Axelrod, and I seem to recall that the legislative branch was under Democrat control--with Mr. Obama as a member! You’re really going with that "It's Bush's fault" story? Really?)

Oops, back to the balance.

Senator—and let me say it explicitly, Republican Senator—are you really going to double-dog dare a member of the press just before he goes on the air? Seriously? And you think that’s going to work? You think you’ll get a result other than ridicule by the journalist? Sir, that’s why we have the First Amendment. You’ve gone from 15 seconds of mention, among NINE THOUSAND other earmarks, to a full-length segment in which you make your whole party look like hypocrites.

Sir, your phone is ringing. It’s Michael Steele.

There Is No Plan

Remember a couple weeks ago, when Timothy Geithner announced the plan to fix the economy? The day before, the President had demurred when asked to provide some details, saying he didn’t want to step on the Treasury Secretary’s toes. Huh? Okay, maybe he hadn’t been briefed yet, or didn’t want to talk about something that complicated without some notes. Only…the next day, Geithner didn’t announce a plan. He announced a plan to create a plan. The market didn’t exactly freak, but it sure dropped.

Yesterday (Feb 23), the President held a “Fiscal Responsibility Summit” at the White House, a bipartisan affair attended by over a hundred economic and political leaders. The idea was to come up with a plan--well, I thought that was the idea. The attendees split into "breakout groups" and…well, apparently, all they did was talk. President Obama facilitated a wrap-up discussion when the summit was over, asking key members of various groups to “outbrief” their team’s results. It became painfully obvious that none of the members had any idea what to do, none of them had any actual plans, and none of them seemed to even grasp the concept that they needed to come up with a plan. It was just an academic roundtable.

Memo to the President: Sir, we need a plan. We don’t need talk about creating a plan--I have now officially lost track of the number of times you’ve said, “We’re going to come up with a plan.” It usually involves a vague pronouncement that someone is going to do that.

Excellent. When?

The campaign is over. It’s been over for months. During the campaign, during the transition, and during your short time in office, you’ve kept promising us that there’s going to be a plan. I’m starting to question that. I’m starting to think Senator Reid was including you when he said, “No one knows what to do!” That really worries me, because delegating every bit of planning, and not holding your planners accountable, indicates you still think this is an academic exercise--that you're still the editor, instead of the author.

Mr. President, you’re not at Harvard any more. It’s time to start governing.

Fairness Doctrine RIP? Let's Hope.

Today, President Obama stated, through his press secretary, that he wasn't interested in reimposing the "fairness doctrine." He had indicated as much during the campaign, so it was good to hear him politely rebuke the Democrats who have been calling for it over the last week.

Across several bulletin boards, posters hailed this as proof that the right's worry was simply trumped up. Alas, not so fast. No less than former President Clinton stated in a radio interview this week that it should be reimposed, as did Congressman Waxman. Sorry, posters, but those two examples alone are enough to cause worry.

President Obama should go further, however. He should come out forcefully and state that the fairness doctrine is nothing more than censorship, which has no place in America. The marketplace of ideas does not need government interference, whether by blatantly insisting on "equal time" (but only on certain media) or subtly suggesting we need "local ownership."

The right should praise Mr. Obama for this statement, take him at his word, and trumpet it--not least because doing so will make it more difficult for him to walk back from it, but also because it would demonstrate that their differences are based entirely, strictly, and always on policy.

Does Congress Hate Workers?

This week, Congressman Sherman (D-CA) called on Wall Street CEO’s to sell their corporate jets in order to raise capital. Last week, when Senator Levin (D-MI) said basically the same thing, I started wondering, “Why do these guys hate workers?” Levin represents a state that practically identifies itself by its blue-collar roots (“the working man”). So, why does he want to put blue collar workers on the street?

I mean the folks who build the jets. Do you think they come from a magic jet fairy? They are built by blue collar workers. They are fixed, flown, and fueled by workers. They cost about $2000 per hour to fly. Where do you think that money goes, Senator? Congressman? It goes to pay the salaries of the people who keep them in the air. So they have jobs. Jobs our President wants to save, as I recall.

Oh, but it’s a terrible perk and sets the wrong example? Ah, like luxury boats—the kind President Clinton put a tax on? And then people realized they were putting the boat builders out of business? Selling that jet also means one less jet the workers need to build. Oops.

And let’s look at that “perk.” Let’s say your CEO earns $10 million per year—a lot less than most of them, but I think most people could agree that a successful CEO might be worth that. That works out to $5000 per hour, assuming a 40 hour work week and 50 weeks per year. (Certainly they work more, but let’s assume they just do the extra pro bono.)

By my math, if they fly commercial—or drive, like the idiots from Ford, GM, and Chrysler—then every hour, they are stealing $3000 in value from the company. They’re stealing from me, their stockholder. (The jet costs around $50 million, but it lasts 10 years and flies lots of suits at once, so let's not do more math.)

The head of my own company (which, let’s just say, is REALLY big) recently mused at a gathering that perhaps he should’ve driven down from corporate headquarters, instead of flying. It would’ve taken him 4 hours instead of 1 hour, each way. I know he was trying to be considerate, and I didn’t want to be rude, so I bit my tongue. What I really wanted to say was, “Sir, respectfully, if you don’t have something better to do with your time than spend 4 hours driving here, we have the wrong boss.”

We need to get past the idea that CEO’s fly on corporate jets because it’s fun, or fashionable, or chic. They do it because their time is really that valuable. If they screw up the company, then fire them. But that doesn’t change the fact that the company needs someone whose time is really that valuable. America is an egalitarian society, so we don’t like to think like that. But let’s get serious for a minute—that’s what we say we want in our nation’s leaders. Why would businesses want someone who’s just mediocre? Who, exactly, do we expect to end up in the cabinet?