Dueling Banjos
President Barack Obama and former vice president Dick Cheney played dueling banjos Thursday over Guantanamo Bay prison and torture with each charging the other that their opposing policies made America less safe from terrorists.
In some respects it was an historic confrontation not seen since former President Theodore Roosevelt took on his former protege William Howard Taft in 1912.
The speeches were delivered back to back in separate locations in Washington D.C. and covered live by the cable news channels.
It wasn’t a case of oneupmanship. Neither man won or lost. But it did give the public something to chew in a digestive tract that won’t be regurgitated until the next election cycle or two. Or another terrorist attack on the United States.
The most significant aspect of the speeches is that Obama and Cheney — at least until he left office Jan. 20 — are the only two persons privy to all the classified intelligence matters to speak publicly about the status of our national defense security mechanisms. Everything else we have heard or read has come in bits and pieces from the White House and testimony before Congressional committees.
For example, in Cheney’s defense we have seen no evidence he claims vindicates what he calls “harsh interrogation” techniques. We have heard from former Central Intelligence Agency officials that torture does not work. Until all the evidence is revealed, Cheney must be given the benefit of the doubt despite the fact I believe his sole purpose in this debate is to cover his ass.
In his speech, Obama failed to outline a detailed course of action closing Guantanamo which forced his Democratic allies in the Senate to withhold $80 million funding for the base closure.
What he did was spell out a course of action with congressional and court oversight to hold and try suspected terrorists in U.S. prisons.
This is where it gets sticky. Most Americans do not want these terrorists in prisons or courts in their backyards. Yet, dozens of terrorists are being held in federal prisons with no security breaks reported. The exception to the opposition is tiny (pop. 3,500) Hardin, Mont., where an empty federal prison exists, and Democratic Rep. John Murtha’s district in Pennsylvania.
Charging that congressional debate over the issue produced “fear-mongering” and speeches “calculated to scare people rather than educate them,” Obama pledged: “We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security; nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.”
Obama stressed taking the high moral ground in the fight against al-quada terrorists.
“It’s the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they’d receive better treatment from America’s armed forces than from their own government; the reason why America’s benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries; the reason why we’ve been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism and enlist free nations and free peoples everywhere in the common cause and common effort of liberty,” he said.
“Where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology,” Obama said. Those values were put to the test by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which showed that the government would need new tools to prevent future assaults.
“Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions,” he said. While those decisions “were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people,” he said, “too often our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight,” and it often “trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.”
He added, “Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us — Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens — fell silent. In other words, we went off course.”
Stressing that “we are indeed at war with al-Qaeda and its affiliates,” Obama said that “we do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat.” But he said this must be done “with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”
Cheney, meanwhile, defended the interrogation techniques that the Bush administration authorized the CIA to use on suspected terrorists and denounced the “contrived indignation and phony moralizing” that he said the methods have inspired.
“They were legal, essential, justified, successful and the right thing to do,” Cheney said of the interrogation techniques. “They prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.”
In an apparent reference to the Obama administration, Cheney also charged that “people who consistently distort the truth” about the interrogations “are in no position to lecture anyone about ‘values.’ ”
He warned: “To completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.”
For me, Obama is steering a proper course, despite all its pitfalls and lack of details. There is nothing in the mindset of Muslims that provokes more anger against us than when they see pictures of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
And that, twisted into a recruiting tool by al-quada, is the legacy left behind by the Bush administration torture techniques.
I might suggest the best course of action for Obama is to embark and refine his policy handling the prisoner detainees and let Congress and perhaps a special prosecutor investigate the mess Bush left us.
Cross posted on The Remmers Report
27 Responses to “Dueling Banjos”
“Or another terrorist attack on the United States…”
********
And I'm sure Cheney could set that up…
For me, Obama is steering a proper course, despite all its pitfalls and lack of details.
This is really the area I disagree with, at least as pertaining to Gitmo. In order to judge whether Obama's plans are proper we need better than just vague ideas.
The problem with Gitmo is not it's physical location, it's that hundreds of people were detained indefinitely without a plan. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.
In general I agree with Obama regarding his comments on torture, although I think if there are documents supporting Cheney's claims they should be released.
“In general I agree with Obama regarding his comments on torture, although I think if there are documents supporting Cheney's claims they should be released.”
I don't know DaGoat, let's imagine that the documents were released and backed up Cheney's assertions. What then? I think we get in the classic argument of whether the ends justify the means.
There is something inherently wrong with the idea that we can keep people indefinitely, as long as they're not on our soil. Unfortunately, Gitmo evokes that entire concept in the minds of our European allies. And, their opinion does matter since it makes it harder for their leaders to support us when needed. Theoretically, the physical location shouldn't make a difference, but symbolically, it does. You also have to wonder about the relative percentage of individuals in each category that Obama outlined. If the number in the “must hold, but can't prosecute” category is small, then the economy of scale of maintaining the Gitmo complex for a very few individuals becomes unworkable.
jchem
“I think we get in the classic argument of whether the ends justify the means.”
There's no argument at all legally. If you torture, it doesn't matter what you uncover, it's illegal. That's the rule of law.
If it weren't, cops could beat a confession out of anyone…
There is nothing in the mindset of Muslims that provokes more anger against us than when they see pictures of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Actually, the successful terrorist attack on 9/11 is the single biggest “recruitment device” that the AQ ever accomplished and in the Middle East these allies of the Democrat ultra-left beat their womenfolk nightly in commemoration. They have been angry for a long time, ever since the Ottomans treated them like cattle for several centuries.
As a State Dept. Arabist and political officer in two Arab countries, I believe the sensible policy of “rendition” instigated by Bill Clinton is a good political alternative to Gitmo. Of course, the DNC-guided MSM wouldn't attack Clinton, which gave him an advantage, while the very minor infractions of GWB raised the “contrived indignation and phoney moralizing” of the left into launch sequence. Obama, of course, is subtlely advocating concentration camps, something our wonderful Euro advirsors have a lot of experience with, when he talks about a few Gitmo residents who will have to be kept in “permanent detention” because no “untainted” legal means will be available to convict them and they are too dangerous to be let loose. Obamese for a mini-Andersonville. One of seven Gitmo residents released up to now has been caught in another crime against the infidels. Probably a much larger percentage are in “mole mode” while their moral moron allies in the US press prepare the ground for easier and more efficient terrorist operations—-knowing the secret US policies kindly released by the NYT and now Obama certainly helps.
HemmD, you're right, but that's why I asked the question. So let the documents come out; in my mind it doesn't change anything.
I'd like to see ALL the documents. The pictures are inflammatory and only encourage America-haters, including those on the Democratic Left. And selective release of documents by Obama doesn't enhance his moral authority, and diminishes his political credibility.
I think Pelosi has the most to lose in political cred, however, if the CIA releases the briefing notes from '02, and that's the reason the Dems blocked a commission to investigate these issues today.
I don't know DaGoat, let's imagine that the documents were released and backed up Cheney's assertions. What then? I think we get in the classic argument of whether the ends justify the means.
If that's what the documents show then that's the appropriate discussion. We shouldn't avoid finding out the truth because we're afraid of what we might find.
Theoretically, the physical location shouldn't make a difference, but symbolically, it does
If the reason to leave Gitmo is purely symbolic that's all the more reason to have a good plan in mind before proceeding.
Polling in the Arab world shows a large majority oppose the violence of al Qaeda. Nice job of push the Cheney meme.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-03/…
Yeah, rudi, but five years ago that wasn't the case, and Obama's statements that Gitmo and other internments are driving up recruiting was NEVER true to the extent my 9/11 statement was. The “Cheney meme” you speak of is more accurate than the “Obama meme,” which BHO tried to propound by selectively leaking documents supporting the evils of enhanced interrogation techniques and withheld the documents showing the effectiveness of EITs.
Obama's contention, like much of his approach to national security, is more political than based on strategic and tactical realities. GWB was more honest and effective than BHO, despite the shrieking and hysterics of the surrender-monkey left.
DaGoat: “If that's what the documents show then that's the appropriate discussion. We shouldn't avoid finding out the truth because we're afraid of what we might find.”
That discussion, although appropriate, will not do us any good. What we will find in those documents is that these methods were carried out, end of story. As HemmD pointed out, there isn't a legal argument here.
That discussion, although appropriate, will not do us any good. What we will find in those documents is that these methods were carried out, end of story. As HemmD pointed out, there isn't a legal argument here.
I think there is more than one argument here. What many on the left have been saying for months is “torture is wrong, besides it never works!”. I agree torture is wrong, but I don't agree we should accept as rote that it never works. Since that aspect has already been injected into the discussion, we might as well find out if it's true.
I also disagree there isn't a legal argument. I think the whole issue of whether the guidelines set up by the Bush lawyers were appropriate is a legal one. They were tasked to provide a legal definition of acceptable force in interrogation.
DaGoat
The argument is not torture is ineffective, the argument is torture is illegal.
If effectiveness is your criteria, then why not let cops “beat the truth” out of suspects like they did in the good old days?
Hell, carpet bombing villages is an effective way to get one or two bad guys hiding there. Starting an unneeded and non-related war in Iraq is an “effective” way to reduce terrorist acts in the US.
If you divorce moral correctness from effectiveness, you lose the reason for fighting in the first place.
IMO
If the effectiveness of torture is not an issue why has it been brought up so many times, from many people on both sides of the aisle? I continue to think all relevant documents should be released, and a bipartisan truth commission (for lack of a better term) be set up. If all relevant documents are not released any investigation will be accused of partisanship, and rightly so.
There is something inherently wrong with the idea that we can keep people indefinitely, as long as they're not on our soil.
So what the hell's the difference between that and what Obama now says he's going to do, which is hold them indefinitely ON our soil?
That little bombshell seems to be (probably intentionally) lost in all of the brouhaha about the dueling speeches.
DaGoat
Cheney is the main person using the effectiveness argument, and those who wish to refute the efficacy merely fell into that debating trap.
I have said from the start that all documents need to be released. The political games being played with this is depressing.
For Obama's part, I think his “not looking back” policy is right from a political point of view; but I totally disagree that it is the right thing to do. For me, moral certitude trumps political expediency every time. This has been my major criticism of Obama,
I understand he wants people to pull together so that we as A country can move forward, but he is wrong to think that real change can be supported by all when past crimes are swept under the rug. Ironically, he may see the political calculus of burying torture as “effective,” but that's the same moral argument made by Cheney.
Democracy is about justice and the rule of law, not efficacy.
CS
Agreed. Keeping people without charge or trial is flat wrong no matter where they're kept.
I suggest we send them to their country of origin or one that will accept them. They may be shot on site or released to cheering crowds; but that can't be the deciding factor. Morally, I don't see another option that is less messy.
So what the hell's the difference between that and what Obama now says he's going to do, which is hold them indefinitely ON our soil?
Bingo, Obama is changing the location of the problem but not the problem. From where I sit it looks like people just want him to do SOMETHING, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.
Hemm, I don't have the same moral certitude that you do about what is right or wrong in that situation. Surely it's troublesome to think that we'd have someone in custody who has trained with al Qaeda and declared allegiance to them, and just release that person back to his country of origin where he'd be likely to resume terrorist activities.
I see a lot of grey area there, and that is why I don't think that our Constitutional protections necessarily apply to someone who has aligned themselves with an entity that's at war with the US.
But what I was pointing out is how convenient it is that the way Obama slipped that in is having the desired effect- his supporters ignore that he's only making cosmetic changes to most of the Bush policies, including the indefinite detention of captives without trial.
Having said that I'm sympathetic to Obama's new position on 'preventative detention' (despite reservations about the devious way it was introduced and the euphemistic name), I do think that Glenn Greenwald makes some good points (and as always, he's consistent in his position which I admire even when I often disagree.)
Although, I hope all you guys remember at some point your flogging of this dying horse becomes torturous too. (if Mullen can post with cliched analogies, so can I!)
Is there any short term memory about what has transpired……….there is no support for truth commissions by Obama, there is no support for relocation of detainees by Congress or the vast majority of voters.
Campaign promise meets political reality…..and one always trumps the other.
Having said that I'm sympathetic to Obama's new position on 'preventative detention' (despite reservations about the devious way it was introduced and the euphemistic name)
Isn't preventive detention actually the same or worse than what Bush was doing, but just under a different name? The main problem with Gitmo was the indefinite nature of the detention. It seems to me preventive detention is just giving a different name to doing the same thing.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want terrorists unleashed on society. But I also don't want any eventual plan of due process and individual rights thrown away.
CS
“I see a lot of grey area there, and that is why I don't think that our Constitutional protections necessarily apply to someone who has aligned themselves with an entity that's at war with the US.”
So, the argument is that because we really think they'll do us harm, we'll keep them in prison uncharged, unjudged, and unconvicted simply because we think they're dangerous? Who is we? Why should I trust we? The whole concept of indefinite detention is grey by design, and if you trust Obama, you give them the benefit of the doubt. What if “we” is headed by someone you don't trust?
It's convenient to see grey because consequences seem logical when talking about “known terrorists” in Cuba. When that grey is projected beyond the current problem with Guantanamo, however, you end up with moral relativism. As Greenwald points out, there's tens of thousands throughout the world who wish the U.S. harm. Do we round them up too. How about those within the U.S., how about me and you. I know I'm ok, but I have heard things about your loyalties….
The founding fathers wrote the declaration and the constitution to counteract moral relativism. They freely admitted they trusted no one person over the Rule of Law, so they were very specific in the rights of individuals and limitations in their new government. I don't believe these rights and limitations were declared just for Americans, they were declared also as a moral statement of the philosophy on how people should be treated in general. you know, all men are created equal. That moral certitude thing.
Hemm, as I said I think GG makes some valid points and you're echoing them. I suppose when I really think it through, I lean toward release of those who can't be tried (or are tried and not convicted) but would hope that we have human intel on the ground when they're released to track them.
A lot of it too depends on information that neither you nor I have access to- exactly what were the circumstances under which each detainee was captured, and what do we know about them (even if such knowledge doesn't rise to the level of admissible evidence.) I presume since both Bush and now Obama (who have access to that information) feel it would pose a risk to the US to release these detainees, that there's some reasonable amount of 'probable cause' or whatever you want to call it, and that we're no longer talking about some of the people who were initially caught up in the broad net and have already been released.
But yes, I do understand that this relies on assumptions of good faith on the part of the two presidents, and that this itself is dangerous not only because we could be wrong about one or both of them but because we ought not presume that we'll always have administrations in the future acting on good faith.
However, on the counterpoint, I do think it's valid to point out that no war has ever been fought without the power to detain those who are captured as enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict. That we're finally having the discussion of how this conflict is different from all past ones and poses new challenges, to me is a welcome change from the BDS view that has prevailed for the past six or so years.
BHO tried to propound by selectively leaking documents supporting the evils of enhanced interrogation techniques and withheld the documents showing the effectiveness of EITs
Could you try to make an honest argument here? Obama was court ordered to release those specific documents, and unlike the Bush administration, complied with the law. The documents Cheney has called for were banned for release by the presidential order of Geoge W. Bush. Obama didn't even want to have this debate. He wanted to move on. Its Cheney whose in full-on CYA mode, after being slapped down and silenced in the last few years of the Bush administration.