Pat Dollard

Tweet

Wax dummy

WASHINGTON – In soaring rhetoric, Barack Obama ran through his logic for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, deliberately planting himself on the middle ground between his conservative critics—led by Dick Cheney—and those to the left who accuse the new president of failing to restore American justice for all.

Obama slid easily back into his role as constitutional scholar, gliding through a long, carefully reasoned brief in the rotunda of the storied National Archives on Thursday. One of his aims appeared to be diminishing Cheney’s message across town in a cramped-by-comparison conference hall at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Plans for Obama’s speech were made public only a week ago, over a month after Cheney’s appearance was known.

In the company of original copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, Obama stood firm behind his decision—announced on the second day of his presidency—to close the Guantanamo prison, a lockup reviled in the Muslim world and a drag on U.S. relations with many of its oldest allies.

“There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world,” Obama said. “Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al-Qaida that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.”

The prison at the U.S. naval base in Cuba was set up by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as American forces began sweeping up prisoners in Afghanistan in late 2001. By keeping such prisoners outside the United States, the argument went, captives could be held beyond the American judicial system and their cases disposed of in the military judicial system.

But, Obama repeated Thursday: “For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the system of military commissions that were in place at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists. Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years.”

Cheney said, as if in response: “If fine speechmaking, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along.”

Both men appeared to have written their speeches over crystal ball forecasts of what the other would say.

Obama complained that he was weighed down by “cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess” left behind by the Bush White House.

Cheney begged to differ, declaring Obama was rushing to close Guantanamo with “little deliberation and no plan.”

While the sitting president and the former vice president each scored points in their sequential debate, Obama walked away without having given American lawmakers the plan they wanted.

Both the House and the Senate have refused Obama’s request for $80 million to begin closing down the prison, as even some of Obama’s staunchest Democratic allies have demanded he first tell them what he will do with the prisoners.

There is a noisy backlash—mainly fueled by Republicans’ relentless criticism of Obama’s plans—against putting what are seen as dangerous terrorists in U.S. prisons.

But that did not seem to be Obama’s top concern. He seemed more intent on placing himself between the Cheneyites and his critics on the left who are bitterly complaining the president is not strongly defending American legal protections.

“On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency,” Obama said in a pointed return of fire toward those to his left.

“On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: ‘anything goes,’ ” Obama said.

The counter-fire on Cheney, who was never mentioned by name, was clear: “Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the president should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants provided that it is a president with whom they agree.”

Said Cheney: “As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.”

(AP)