Guantanamo Is an Obama Failure
Published in Jornal de Angola
(Angola) on 7 May 2013
by Benjamim Formigo (link to original)
(Angola) on 7 May 2013
by Benjamim Formigo (link to original)
Translated from
by Sarah Nissen.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s second term will end, with little doubt, without the Guantanamo prison being closed; more than 100 people will remain detained without a formal charge, or awaiting judgment for an indefinite time.
Barack Obama, as we know, was elected under huge expectations, both at the domestic level and internationally. Those expectations were so great that the Nobel Committee didn’t hesitate, in October of 2009, 10 months after his inauguration as president of the United States, to award him the Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” his promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and effort to reach out to the Arab world. Four years later, the committee’s reasons don’t appear to have been very grounded and are another incentive for the 44th president to measure up to what the world hoped of him.
Of course, it’s not Obama’s fault that during his election expectations that were sometimes unrealistic were created. Among the president’s electoral promises was a vague notion of withdrawing American troops from the wars into which his predecessor, George W. Bush, brought the United States.
The foreign policy of Obama’s White House fluctuates between moderation and hesitation, contradicting itself, replacing military intervention with the secret operations of the CIA (in the case of drone attacks). He can’t bridge the gap with the European Union, but reinforces military positions in Asia, implicitly assuming that the threat to the U.S. has been transferred from the (former) USSR to the Asia-Pacific region, where China rules. In recent weeks, the standpoints relative to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria have made the president sway; after having traced “a red line” (in his words), he retreats, prudently demanding proof that the weapons were used and by whom. If overseas, one can sympathize with Obama’s prudence, contrasting with his predecessor, domestically the president seemed “weak” or “hesitant.” But, if instead of this prudence Obama sent the Marines or the U.S. Air Force to Syria, he would jump from “weak” or “hesitant” to “adventurer” or “patriot” — even if that decision came to be a bigger mistake.
Obama’s domestic agenda was hit by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and others, on top of the almost-bankruptcy of the bank system to which the Bush administration had to run to help, without managing to avoid a deep financial and economic crisis that infected the rest of the world, especially the Europeans who invested in the very doubtful funds that lead to the “sub-prime” crisis.
Unlike the European policy, Obama responded to the economic crisis in the U.S. with ordinances, an injection of money in the economy, letting the federal deficit increase and allowing — admittedly slow — growth that has added more than 120,000 jobs each month,. Still, the president’s social programs were severely impacted, above all because Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, became majority Republican in 2010, practically putting an end to the president’s domestic agenda.
Without being exhaustive in the achievements and failures of Barack Obama, it is not possible, however, to leave out a brief review of these years to address the core issue of this writing: Guantanamo. Barack Obama, before entering into politics, went to two of the best and most liberal American universities. He advocated in Boston in favor of civil rights, taught Constitutional law, worked with the community in Massachusetts and Illinois and served in the Illinois Senate until being elected in 2004 to the U.S. Senate. When, in 2007, he began his presidential candidacy in the Democratic Party, Barack Obama was a Man of Human Rights, of Justice and Equality — an exaggeration, of course, but founded in his professional and political history. He had no fear of his promise to bring the American troops back, putting an end to the adventures of George W. Bush, and even less when he affirmed his goal to close Guantanamo, bringing back legality and promoting equality among citizens. Remember that the detention camp of presumed terrorists was implanted in Guantanamo, Cuba, because it is outside of American territory and therefore not affected by Federal law.
In reality, Guantanamo became a limbo where 166 prisoners are locked up, the overwhelming majority without a formal charge. Many, according to The Washington Post, will never be brought to trial because of lack of incriminating evidence. They are 166 prisoners who don’t have a limit to their preventive detention, as we call it.
Days after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama signed executive orders and a presidential memorandum determining the preparation for the withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq and the closing of the concentration camp in Guantanamo. “I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo,” he said. The executive order was torpedoed by Congress, which refused the funds requested by the military to transport the prisoners to the U.S. and other countries.
In the last week, Barack Obama once again revealed his intentions to end the Guantanamo limbo. The president publicly pressed Congress, holding it responsible for not releasing funds for closing the detention center. The question, nevertheless, is even more complex. If a responsibility exists in the Capitol, another exists in the White House, which up to now decidedly hasn’t exercised the political desire to put an end to the situation that the president, as much as the legislators and the media, considers to be a disgrace to the image of the country.
In the first years of his term, 70 prisoners were repatriated. Since its opening, just seven prisoners were tried and condemned by the military tribunals — exceptional courts — created for this purpose. Other judgments — that would have been long since concluded in the federal courts, according to various jurists and American lawyers — dragged on without an end in sight. Of the 166 prisoners, the situations of 86 were analyzed because they were considered possible to be repatriated. However, not even one was sent to their country of origin or residency. The White House could use powers granted by Congress to the executive branch through the Department of Defense to advance the repatriation of the prisoners. Despite this, a true paralysis exists.
The fear of returning the prisoners with unproven terrorist activities seems to prevent the president from assuming the responsibility, demanding his partition with the Capitol by default. For a president in his second term, without possibility of re-election, Barack Obama seems excessively reserved, even in what he believes.
Barack Obama, as we know, was elected under huge expectations, both at the domestic level and internationally. Those expectations were so great that the Nobel Committee didn’t hesitate, in October of 2009, 10 months after his inauguration as president of the United States, to award him the Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” his promotion of nuclear nonproliferation and effort to reach out to the Arab world. Four years later, the committee’s reasons don’t appear to have been very grounded and are another incentive for the 44th president to measure up to what the world hoped of him.
Of course, it’s not Obama’s fault that during his election expectations that were sometimes unrealistic were created. Among the president’s electoral promises was a vague notion of withdrawing American troops from the wars into which his predecessor, George W. Bush, brought the United States.
The foreign policy of Obama’s White House fluctuates between moderation and hesitation, contradicting itself, replacing military intervention with the secret operations of the CIA (in the case of drone attacks). He can’t bridge the gap with the European Union, but reinforces military positions in Asia, implicitly assuming that the threat to the U.S. has been transferred from the (former) USSR to the Asia-Pacific region, where China rules. In recent weeks, the standpoints relative to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria have made the president sway; after having traced “a red line” (in his words), he retreats, prudently demanding proof that the weapons were used and by whom. If overseas, one can sympathize with Obama’s prudence, contrasting with his predecessor, domestically the president seemed “weak” or “hesitant.” But, if instead of this prudence Obama sent the Marines or the U.S. Air Force to Syria, he would jump from “weak” or “hesitant” to “adventurer” or “patriot” — even if that decision came to be a bigger mistake.
Obama’s domestic agenda was hit by the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and others, on top of the almost-bankruptcy of the bank system to which the Bush administration had to run to help, without managing to avoid a deep financial and economic crisis that infected the rest of the world, especially the Europeans who invested in the very doubtful funds that lead to the “sub-prime” crisis.
Unlike the European policy, Obama responded to the economic crisis in the U.S. with ordinances, an injection of money in the economy, letting the federal deficit increase and allowing — admittedly slow — growth that has added more than 120,000 jobs each month,. Still, the president’s social programs were severely impacted, above all because Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, became majority Republican in 2010, practically putting an end to the president’s domestic agenda.
Without being exhaustive in the achievements and failures of Barack Obama, it is not possible, however, to leave out a brief review of these years to address the core issue of this writing: Guantanamo. Barack Obama, before entering into politics, went to two of the best and most liberal American universities. He advocated in Boston in favor of civil rights, taught Constitutional law, worked with the community in Massachusetts and Illinois and served in the Illinois Senate until being elected in 2004 to the U.S. Senate. When, in 2007, he began his presidential candidacy in the Democratic Party, Barack Obama was a Man of Human Rights, of Justice and Equality — an exaggeration, of course, but founded in his professional and political history. He had no fear of his promise to bring the American troops back, putting an end to the adventures of George W. Bush, and even less when he affirmed his goal to close Guantanamo, bringing back legality and promoting equality among citizens. Remember that the detention camp of presumed terrorists was implanted in Guantanamo, Cuba, because it is outside of American territory and therefore not affected by Federal law.
In reality, Guantanamo became a limbo where 166 prisoners are locked up, the overwhelming majority without a formal charge. Many, according to The Washington Post, will never be brought to trial because of lack of incriminating evidence. They are 166 prisoners who don’t have a limit to their preventive detention, as we call it.
Days after his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, Barack Obama signed executive orders and a presidential memorandum determining the preparation for the withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq and the closing of the concentration camp in Guantanamo. “I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo,” he said. The executive order was torpedoed by Congress, which refused the funds requested by the military to transport the prisoners to the U.S. and other countries.
In the last week, Barack Obama once again revealed his intentions to end the Guantanamo limbo. The president publicly pressed Congress, holding it responsible for not releasing funds for closing the detention center. The question, nevertheless, is even more complex. If a responsibility exists in the Capitol, another exists in the White House, which up to now decidedly hasn’t exercised the political desire to put an end to the situation that the president, as much as the legislators and the media, considers to be a disgrace to the image of the country.
In the first years of his term, 70 prisoners were repatriated. Since its opening, just seven prisoners were tried and condemned by the military tribunals — exceptional courts — created for this purpose. Other judgments — that would have been long since concluded in the federal courts, according to various jurists and American lawyers — dragged on without an end in sight. Of the 166 prisoners, the situations of 86 were analyzed because they were considered possible to be repatriated. However, not even one was sent to their country of origin or residency. The White House could use powers granted by Congress to the executive branch through the Department of Defense to advance the repatriation of the prisoners. Despite this, a true paralysis exists.
The fear of returning the prisoners with unproven terrorist activities seems to prevent the president from assuming the responsibility, demanding his partition with the Capitol by default. For a president in his second term, without possibility of re-election, Barack Obama seems excessively reserved, even in what he believes.