Disclaimer: The content of the guest contribution is the opinion of the guest and does not necessarily represent the opinion of the management of Moonhowlings.com.
Some things just have to explain themselves.
Colonel Morris Davis speaks with RT.com:
“The slogan “Close Guantanamo” sounds fairly simple. Actually following through and doing it is a much more difficult process,” he said.“Guantanamo is still open, the military commissions have resumed and in my view the president just didn’t have the balls to follow through with doing the right thing.”
So, is Colonel Davis spot on? Did President Obama learn more information or does he simply lack the …nads? I want to think he learned things were harder once one became president than during a campaign when the decisions aren’t real.
Are issues of war always that cut and dry? My guess is that things look easier from the outside than from inside, when you know all the facts and what you have to work with. Take Harry Truman for example. How would you have liked to have been that poor bastard? He knew nothing about the atomic bomb. Here he was FDR’s vice president. He knew NOTHING about this weapon that he had to make the final decision to drop.
Harry Truman always seemed like the practical sort from what I have read. But can you imagine he didn’t know about the atomic bomb? Churchill knew there was such a thing but our own vice president did not. What was FDR thinking?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/truman/player/
People should remember this presidential (then candidate) promise and keep it in mind when they listen to all of the promises being made by the Re/Teapublican presidential candidates in the run up to the Iowa caucuses. Presidents don’t pass any laws–they PROPOSE legislation, but Congress passes legislation and can override presidential vetoes if necessary. So all the promises about making government smaller, reducing the work force, changing the tax laws, doing away with the present health care act are all just promises–not worth the paper they are written on.
Yes, Obama is to blame for failure to close Guantanamo, but a NIMBY Congress hasn’t helped matters either.
I have always thought the Republican reaction to closing Guantanamo was mistaken as a matter of policy and principle, and that, politically, it would blow up in our faces like a trick cigar. I was wrong on the last point.
The talking points went around very early on this – even our own Governor was quick out of the box saying that we didn’t want these ruffians tried in our jurisdiction. Just too scary for us. I would have thought the correct conservative reaction would be – “You betcha,” (to quote one of the leading intellectual lights of the Party), “bring ’em here and we’ll deal with them. This is our fight too and our courts and justice system are perfectly equipped to deal with these bastards.” The reaction that these guys were just too frightening for us was weak and unbecoming. But it did gain strong traction on Capitol Hill and in the media. I don’t think Obama anticipated how popular that approach would be.
PS: to be clear and accurate, the “You betcha” part of the quote was the only part that I was attributing to GOP luminaries. The rest was a simplistic paraphrase of what I thought should have been said.
I think there is a very real fear of the populace of having suspected terrorists being tried in the US (not saying I’m against it but I’m going to make a counter point).
Have you ever served as a juror on a gang case?
The judge (at least in my sole experience on a gang case – I’ve been paneled in other juries) makes very clear that the case has a gang connection and that those that are unwilling to serve because of that issue may be excused.
There is a real fear of some that if they serve that they’ll somehow be targetted by that gang during/after the trial. Not everyone has the fortitude to roger up when you are in the chair and have to make that call.
So, I’m sympathetic to an arguement that communities don’t want those individuals held and tried in that community. If the person is found innocent what then happens to that person? It’s a mess with no easy solution.
FWIW, in that one case we found him innocent. The state did not meet it’s burden.
@marin and how will you ever know that the jurors didn’t instinctively raise the burden of proof in their own minds?
I think there are all sorts of complications starting with the fact that Gitmo ‘residents’ are a mixed bag. Some are known terrorists and some were just wrong place wrong time.
So what are they all really? POW? Enemy combatants? Do we try POWs? What is an enemy combatant? Why would we give back a POW before the war was over? I know that during WWII POWs were brought to the United States to ensure safety of ships going across the Atlantic from Europe. My father somehow spent some time working with POWs from both Italy and Germany when they were housed in Newport News. I think they were just sent back at the end of the war or exchanged for our guys. I remember my parents saying that many of them didn’t want to go back and tried to stay here in the United States.
I prefer a president who might hold back on a campaign promise rather that mushing forward and doing the wrong thing. I don’t have a dog in this fight like Moe. From my vantage point, I can’t criticize the president for Gitmo. I think he found out that campaign promises are often very difficult to keep, when one really is confronted with the reality of the situation.
@Scout, You betcha! wink!
snicker.
Are you suggesting that our local Virginians took a sissy view of terrorists?
@Moon-howler
You don’t. But, I can tell you from my POV the state had a weak case, the CA they assigned was not able to articulate a good ‘picture’ for us on what happened and why and the defendant seemed to be more of a victim than the ‘victims/witnesses’ the state provided.
Maybe the defendant cleaned up better than the other guys but I just didn’t believe he instigated anything.
I think Mo can better define but they are not POWs. IIRC they are not covered under the convention as they aren’t uniformed members of any real military. They’re enemy combatants. Now, what we do with them is up in the air. I don’t know. I think if the States aren’t willing to make this happen the Federales can always try the Gitmo detainees in Washington DC as it’s not a state and is under the power of Congress.
@marin, Now there’s a plan! I expect Congress would be chicken to have them in Washington. ho ho ho. That might work but not place to house them without going over into a state? you can’t put them all up at the Mayflower.
” I want to think he learned things were harder once one became president than during a campaign when the decisions aren’t real. ”
I would tend to agree with you. I’m sure many of his naive presuppositions went out the window, the moment he received his first official threat briefing.
“Are issues of war always that cut and dry? My guess is that things look easier from the outside than from inside, when you know all the facts and what you have to work with.”
No, things aren’t ever cut and dry. Clauswitz called this “the Fog of War”. Not a critique, just an observation: Col. Davis views things through the eyes of a lawyer. His role in combat was to ensure that the “Laws of War” the US subscibes to, the Geneva Convention, and other legal guidelines to restrain and manage the political application of violence, are within the bounds of “Lawful and Just War”. This is an important mission. However, just as any lawyer or judge would do, he views the laws as written, and how they are applied from as subjective perspective. His opinion does influence his perspective.
I was a line officer, fully qualified to serve in command commensurate with my rank, in any ground combat unit. I had to deal with Rules of Engagement (ROE) that often hampered mission accomplishment. I understood why they were necessary, but I always found the ROE often lagged behind the situation on the ground. Additionally, as marinm stated, the rules that existed at the time were written to deal with organized armies and forces fighting for a recognized governmental authority, not terrorists or irregular forces, captured on a battlefield outside of US territory.
I respect Colonel Davis because he was willing to give up his career rather than compromise his principles, even though I disagree with him. I disagree with him because of my perspective, as an unrestricted line officer.
Steve, thanks for your perspective here.
It is an important point of view also.
Steve,
I appreciate your honesty, I truly do, and I thank you for being respectful, it is rare commondity these days.
“I respect Colonel Davis because he was willing to give up his career rather than compromise his principles, even though I disagree with him. I disagree with him because of my perspective, as an unrestricted line officer.”
Moe poses many interesting moral and legal dilemas for this country.
“Do as I say, not as I do” seems to fit what Moe is describing in our recent policies on the “war” on terrorism.
I have always wondered, if we are in two wars, how can the people in guantanamo NOT be prisoners of WAR. Are we in a war or are we not? Does our government use the term for only the convenience of congressional money and misuse of power?
I do believe Obama was rightfully hunted down, but the American cleric, killed by a drone, way too much of a gray area for me.
I meant POW as in those with who we have to follow the Geneva Conventions with. @Elena.
We were told time and time again they weren’t POWs. I guess I drank the kool aid. I think how they got around it was the people were not wearing uniforms of a country. There are an established set of rules that describe who is and who is not a a POW. These folks didn’t fit the criteria. They didn’t wear a uniform, they didn’t represent a country, they weren’t part of a standing army. They were just people trying to kill us. I guess that is where enemy combatant comes from. Frankly, I had not given it much thought until we began discussing the video.
So who do we exchange with? Which country? Who do we return the Gitmo captives to? Do anyone want them?
Truthfully, they fought us on unconventional grounds, I have no problem holding them unconventionally. If no one wants them, then they are probably living a better life in Gitmo than wherever they came from. grrrrr to them.
I am pretty unintellectual when it comes to kicking the crap out of people who were trying to kill us. But you knew that because of self confesson.
@Elena
“I have always wondered, if we are in two wars, how can the people in guantanamo NOT be prisoners of WAR. Are we in a war or are we not? Does our government use the term for only the convenience of congressional money and misuse of power?”
It’s a legal distinction.
Look to Part I Article 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
So, it’s not a sound byte.
BTW, you said Obama instead of Osama. 😉
From my understanding to, the people in Gitmo are prisoners of war. They are enemy combatants caught during war time.
It is the question of the type of combatant they are and the question of what to do with them.
In many cases, they are “unlawful combatants.”
This seems to be a good explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
The other question being considered…. does the government treat them as POW’s or as criminals? One does not try a POW. They may be unlawful combatants but not criminals.
Terrorists seem to fall into a gray area.
“BTW, you said Obama instead of Osama.”
If I had written this, it would have been called wishful thinking, or a fruedian slip. In Elena’s case, I’m going with “typographical error”. Afterall, the late Ted Kennedy once flubbed Obama’s name when asked a question by a reporter, referring to Obama as “Osama”. The worst though was Al Sharpton on his radio show, referring to him as “Obama Barraka”.
Good call Steve! Oy Vay did I flub that one!
“In Elena’s case, I’m going with “typographical error”. ”
Agreed. That’s why I simply pointed it out rather than make a major deal about it. 😉
Yes.
That’s as clear as we can be on “are we in a war or not?” Because, technically, we’re not. But we want to be. But Congress and the President did not want to “Declare War” because that had a whole lot of ramifications and effects that have been added to the act of declaring war, such as automatic price controls, etc.
If I had been Obama, I would have gone to Congress the day after the Inauguration, and asked Congress for, at the least, a reauthorization of Bush’s powers, but really, a Declaration. Basically, I would have put it on Congress’s shoulders. THEY are the ones that declare war. Any authorized actions belong to CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT. There’s no such thing as “President ____________’s War.”
@Cargo,
When was the last declared war?
@Elena
Collateral damage.
@Cargo,
You are going to feel queasy on this one. I just got an email from ACLU regarding the NDAA. You and they agree, They are starting a petition drive.
@Moon-howler
World War II
Technically to me this is Boehner’s War. He has the power to cut funding to the war at his pleasure.. As it was with Pelosi when she was running the show.
Just another demonstration of how both parties have tossed the Constitution.
correct re WWII. It seems one sided for people to beat up on Obama when no one has declared war in 70 years, since the day that will live in infamy.
@marin
I appreciate the latitude I have been given regarding my faux paux 😉
I changed it. @ Elena. An easy mistake to make.
I was always against the idea of torture. I think Shep Smith said it best ” we are America, we don’t f***ing torture”
Moe did something very few will do, put his money (in this case, his job)where is mouth is, a rare act indeed.
This country is a nation of laws, but laws can be a funny thing when they create obstacles to a perceived need to be expedient (like the American cleric being assisanated).
Its seems ok to “bend” the rules as long as the recipient of the bending is not your family member or friend.
Whether you agree with Moe or not, asking these questions is a critical requirement if one wants to maintain a healthy Democracy, at least that is my opinion.
Let us not forget the bizarre alliance between Bob Barr and Dennis Kusinich over the Patriot Act!
We should always ask the questions. And sometimes face unpleasant answers.
In the case of the Yemen imam, I think that he actually renounced his citizenship, but I’m not sure. At least in his case, it was obvious that he was working with the enemy. We would not have hesitated to shoot an American serving the Nazis.
In the case of waterboarding….it is a type of torture. And all apologies to Mr. Shep Smith….we do f***ing torture and have done so for years. Or worse.
My uncle related to me stories of actions in the North African desert. Dead troops were being ransacked and desecrated by local tribesmen after combat, before they could be buried. After requesting and then demanding that the tribes stop it to no result, the local commanders descended upon tribes and shot many of the men. There were no more problems. Sometimes expediency works. Is it wrong? Yes. Sometimes those in charge do wrong things…..but, they should also take responsibility for them.
If we waterboard, the President should take responsibility for it. Congressman West took a enemy outside a tent after he refused to reveal the source and location of an IED. Knowing that his troops were in danger, he took the man outside, pointed his sidearm at his head, fired one round next to head and and told him that the next one was going to kill him. The terrorist talked. We found the IED’s. Congressman West reported himself to his superiors.
West 2012
1. Why was a Congressman fighting in the war?
2. Is he that rude man who makes misogynistic remarks from Florida?
3. Of course we have used torture, but should we?
4. Is threatening to shoot someone in the head torture? I don’t think so. War is fugly.
5. I have mixed feelings about the use of torture, much of it depends on circumstances. Under ordinary circumstances it should not be used. but..define torture.
Putting glass under someone’s nails and grinding it in, disembowlment, drawing and quartering, torture. Threatening to put a bullet between someone’s eyes, not so much.
I’m sorry I didn’t scroll down and see this post (thanks M-H for posting) sooner. Rather than rush a reply, I’ll work on it. One of the great things about this country is that we can have this discussion freely without fear of … hold on a minute, there’s a knock at the d…………
@Moon-howler
He was Colonel before he was a Congressman. I don’t know about any misogynistic remarks. I was using him as an example for using unapproved actions and taking responsibility.