Obama Flirts With the Bush Line
Published in Die Zeit
(Germany) on 23 February 2009
by Christoph von Marschall (link to original)
(Germany) on 23 February 2009
by Christoph von Marschall (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Katy Burtner.
He strictly opposed Guantanamo and Bush’s interrogation methods. Now it appears that President Obama’s anti-terror policies will be more Bush-like than expected.
His positions and promises during the campaign appeared to be crystal-clear. Barack Obama branded many of then-President George W. Bush’s methods in the war on terror illegal. He called the Guantanamo prison camp shameful and announced his intention to close it. He attacked the policy of denying legal rights to terror suspects in U.S. custody outside the United States and he spoke indignantly about Bush’s attempts to shield members of the government from investigation for possible criminal acts by invoking “executive privilege.” This amounted to a de facto obstruction of justice on the grounds that it would threaten national security, which, he claimed, took precedence over other national interests.
Since Obama became president, however, the signals coming from the Oval Office have been ambiguous. He halted the controversial military tribunals against terror suspects in Guantanamo and ordered studies to ascertain how the facility could be phased completely out within a year. The first prisoner to be released from Guantanamo since Obama’s inauguration, Briton Binyam Mohammed, was handed over to British authorities last Friday. U.S. authorities had accused him of planning an attack using a nuclear “dirty bomb.” Officials determined last October that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge.
Similarities to Bush
Recently, indications have been piling up that Obama’s anti-terrorism policies will be more similar to Bush’s than had been expected. On his second day in office, Obama ordered a review of conditions in Guantanamo that is expected to be released this week. According to a New York Times report, the review came to the conclusion that the conditions of detention adhered to guidelines laid out in the Geneva Conventions. It also concluded with a warning that closing Guantanamo and transferring the inmates to other prisons could result in a worsening of their living conditions.
The Marine Corps installation Guantanamo falls under the authority of Admiral Patrick Walsh, Vice-Chief of Naval Operations who authored the report. In the report, Walsh investigates claims of civil rights violations such as solitary confinement and forced feeding of hunger strike participants; he makes suggestions for practical improvements in day-to-day operations, mainly proposing more liberal opportunities for inmates to interact and communicate with one another. His choice of words is notable. Where Guantanamo critics refer to solitary confinement, the report says the inmates were placed in “single occupancy cells.” There, they were generally allowed one hour per day contact with other prisoners.
Criticism by human rights organizations
The report views civil liberties organizations with suspicion. Attorney Gitanjali Gutierrez, who represents prisoners, claims there have been no improvements in Guantanamo since Obama took office. Others surmise Obama’s administration is preparing arguments that may lead to an extension of Guantanamo’s existence.
According to U.S. media reports, the administration is engaged in serious debate behind closed doors as to just how much change in anti-terrorism policy is possible without endangering national security. There is also no agreement yet as to which agencies will have decisive influence in the matter. As long as the Pentagon and especially the Navy is responsible, military perspectives and security arguments will receive more consideration than if the civilian Justice Department has control. The new Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced on Friday he would create a special division to investigate the cases of the 245 Guantanamo inmates.
Ambiguous signals on state secrets as well
Human rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are also watching with skepticism the handling of 600 terrorist prisoners jailed at Bagram in Afghanistan. Like the Bush administration before it, the Obama administration has decided that since the prison is outside the geographical boundaries of the United States, prisoners there have no right to appeal their convictions in American courts. ACLU attorney Jonathan Hafetz, who represents the prisoners, has since accused the Obama administration of “accepting the Bush policy of creating courts outside the judicial system.”
Over the last three years, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually granted Guantanamo prisoners the right to appeal their convictions in American civilian courts. It is, however, unknown whether sentences to prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq are transferable. Guantanamo is an official U.S. military installation while Bagram is not.
A third indication of a more strict line to be pursued by the Obama administration is the handling of official secrets and the issue of “executive privilege” when it comes to protecting government officials and their actions in the war on terror. Thus far, the signals from the Oval Office have also been ambiguous. A week ago, Attorney General Holder promised to review every executive order put into effect by George W. Bush. On that same day, however, government attorney David Letter used the same privilege in seeking to protect Boeing from charges that it aided the Central Intelligence Agency with their illegal rendition flights.
His positions and promises during the campaign appeared to be crystal-clear. Barack Obama branded many of then-President George W. Bush’s methods in the war on terror illegal. He called the Guantanamo prison camp shameful and announced his intention to close it. He attacked the policy of denying legal rights to terror suspects in U.S. custody outside the United States and he spoke indignantly about Bush’s attempts to shield members of the government from investigation for possible criminal acts by invoking “executive privilege.” This amounted to a de facto obstruction of justice on the grounds that it would threaten national security, which, he claimed, took precedence over other national interests.
Since Obama became president, however, the signals coming from the Oval Office have been ambiguous. He halted the controversial military tribunals against terror suspects in Guantanamo and ordered studies to ascertain how the facility could be phased completely out within a year. The first prisoner to be released from Guantanamo since Obama’s inauguration, Briton Binyam Mohammed, was handed over to British authorities last Friday. U.S. authorities had accused him of planning an attack using a nuclear “dirty bomb.” Officials determined last October that there was insufficient evidence to support the charge.
Similarities to Bush
Recently, indications have been piling up that Obama’s anti-terrorism policies will be more similar to Bush’s than had been expected. On his second day in office, Obama ordered a review of conditions in Guantanamo that is expected to be released this week. According to a New York Times report, the review came to the conclusion that the conditions of detention adhered to guidelines laid out in the Geneva Conventions. It also concluded with a warning that closing Guantanamo and transferring the inmates to other prisons could result in a worsening of their living conditions.
The Marine Corps installation Guantanamo falls under the authority of Admiral Patrick Walsh, Vice-Chief of Naval Operations who authored the report. In the report, Walsh investigates claims of civil rights violations such as solitary confinement and forced feeding of hunger strike participants; he makes suggestions for practical improvements in day-to-day operations, mainly proposing more liberal opportunities for inmates to interact and communicate with one another. His choice of words is notable. Where Guantanamo critics refer to solitary confinement, the report says the inmates were placed in “single occupancy cells.” There, they were generally allowed one hour per day contact with other prisoners.
Criticism by human rights organizations
The report views civil liberties organizations with suspicion. Attorney Gitanjali Gutierrez, who represents prisoners, claims there have been no improvements in Guantanamo since Obama took office. Others surmise Obama’s administration is preparing arguments that may lead to an extension of Guantanamo’s existence.
According to U.S. media reports, the administration is engaged in serious debate behind closed doors as to just how much change in anti-terrorism policy is possible without endangering national security. There is also no agreement yet as to which agencies will have decisive influence in the matter. As long as the Pentagon and especially the Navy is responsible, military perspectives and security arguments will receive more consideration than if the civilian Justice Department has control. The new Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced on Friday he would create a special division to investigate the cases of the 245 Guantanamo inmates.
Ambiguous signals on state secrets as well
Human rights organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are also watching with skepticism the handling of 600 terrorist prisoners jailed at Bagram in Afghanistan. Like the Bush administration before it, the Obama administration has decided that since the prison is outside the geographical boundaries of the United States, prisoners there have no right to appeal their convictions in American courts. ACLU attorney Jonathan Hafetz, who represents the prisoners, has since accused the Obama administration of “accepting the Bush policy of creating courts outside the judicial system.”
Over the last three years, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually granted Guantanamo prisoners the right to appeal their convictions in American civilian courts. It is, however, unknown whether sentences to prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq are transferable. Guantanamo is an official U.S. military installation while Bagram is not.
A third indication of a more strict line to be pursued by the Obama administration is the handling of official secrets and the issue of “executive privilege” when it comes to protecting government officials and their actions in the war on terror. Thus far, the signals from the Oval Office have also been ambiguous. A week ago, Attorney General Holder promised to review every executive order put into effect by George W. Bush. On that same day, however, government attorney David Letter used the same privilege in seeking to protect Boeing from charges that it aided the Central Intelligence Agency with their illegal rendition flights.
Previous article![]( "African Leaders, Take Lessons from Obama")
