I just finished Suskind's new book. (WaPo review; NYT review.) Neither the WaPo reviewer nor the NYT one gets what Suskind's aiming at.
Suskind is trying to make a larger point with this book, I think, than just to tell the story of what went on between CIA and the White House during 2001--2004. He argues that the "War on Terror" has removed morality from the American arsenal, to its detriment. This point is also made in the results of a recent poll by the Pew Research people:
America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.
When the United States locks people up in Guantanamo calling them "cold-blooded killers" and "the worst of the worst" and then turns around and releases some of them based on the odd claim that they are no longer enemy combatants, when it practices "rendition" of suspects to countries which torture them, when it allows its own personnel to waterboard prisoners, then the United States has given up one of its best weapons: the idea that it's doing right.
Suskind closes by quoting Deuteronomy 16:20. It reads: "Justice, Justice. This you must pursue." He then says:
Justice--an overused word these days--is not mentioned twice, however, for added emphasis. Here Hebrew scholars agree--and they don't agree on much--that it's once for the ends, and once for the means.
I think he's nailed it. When the President and his minions didn't stop to ask themselves "is this the right thing to do, and is this the best way to do it?" they forfeited much of the residual goodwill this country has had for sixty years, since the end of World War 2. And now is the time when we desperately need that goodwill in order to get cooperation from other countries around the world.
Posted by Linkmeister at June 25, 2006 05:55 PM | TrackBackSeems that the President's supporters don't look at losing "goodwill" as a bad thing. They just blow it off and say "We don't care what other countries think anyway. We know we're right, and we know more than they do. They're just a bunch of commie pinko girlie-men. If they have a problem with us, we'll bomb the hell outta them. That'll shut them up."
Posted by: D4P at June 25, 2006 06:45 PMI have really been struggling with the Guantanamo issue (nota bene: I did 4 months TAD there in 1971).
I wish that it could be closed, for reasons that range from following the advice of trusted allies to the fact that it would remove one more weapon used against us in the PR wars.
But what should be done with remaining prisoners there? Should they just be released at the gate, and let Castro deal with them? Should they be forcibly returned to the country of their nationality, even if such return is against the wishes of said countries? Should third party havens be found for those who are stateless or are persona non grata in their home countries?
Or . . should we allow full civil trials for these people? Allow them all of the rights of a US citizen?
I recall reading much of German prisoners captured in WWII and interned here in the USA. They were not given rights over and beyond the Geneva Conventions, and their internment was generally regarded as lasting for the duration of the conflict. Their capture was usually at the hands of our own military, and an "evidence-trail" of their culpability was not expected to be up to civilian standards.
In the 21st century, however, we have "warriors" intent upon doing harm to our country that do not wear uniforms, we are not at war with their home nations, etc. What to do when they are captured?
There are numerous civil precedents for the detention of individuals if they "represent a continuing threat to society". Included in this are the "criminally-menatally ill"
But I still wish Gitmo was closed now, if an acceptable solution can be found for their relocation.
perhaps a grand deal with our close allies can be crafted, in that the US will close Gitmo in exchange for cooperation in updating the Geneva Conventions to reflect this new type of war.
What would you do?
Posted by: pixelshim at June 27, 2006 06:30 AMI agree it's difficult. From what I can tell, many if not most of the detainees there were people picked up by our "allies" in Afghanistan and turned over to us for bounty. I'd suggest hearings of some sort, maybe military tribunals, maybe a special judicial court. Say a three-judge panel to whom evidence could be presented for and against each detainee, and if the panel decided there hadn't been sufficient evidence that they were terrorists, then send them back to their home countries with our apologies (and maybe some small compensation, like we've been paying to families of Iraqi civilians killed by mistake).
If there is evidence they were/are terrorists, keep them locked up, maybe in a US prison (Guantanamo is too much of a symbol to keep it open, in my view).
For the guys who can't be returned to their home countries (the Chinese muslim weegars or whatever they're called) because their country has siezed on their detention as an excuse to keep them out, I don't really know what to do with them. Remember the juvenile story "Man Without a Country?" I can't see putting them on a ship to sail the world indefinitely like the protagonist was, but I'm at a loss to know what to do with them.
Posted by: Linkmeister at June 27, 2006 09:56 AMI would speculate that we cannot let soem of them go or keep them under other circumstances. If a person has been tortured in US custody we cannot prosecute them. If they also comitted heinous acts we cannot let them go.
Posted by: DuWayne at June 27, 2006 10:49 PMOne of the tough issues is what "judicial" entity should be empowered to assess the evidence.
The Bush Administration suggests military tribunals, and there has been some suppot of that by the Judicial branch, especially in the Appellate Courts.
Opponents are suggesting that some for civil proceedings are called for, with the "defendants" having more rights than might be offered through military tribunals.
The issue of "discovery" by the defendants lawyers is yet another issue. If the Government's information can be challenged, should defense lawyers have access to the information, how it was collected, and be able to challenge it with their own witnesses?
Posted by: pixelshim at June 28, 2006 05:33 AM