Cancel That Order

He promised much and he changed much. Although President Obama’s most recent decisions may upset many progressives, no one has any suggestions as to how else he should govern.

They were words that echoed thunderously, and they were words well received by most Americans and by the world. Guantanamo, and especially the fear-mongering lawyers advising George W. Bush, were an enormous mistake, said Barack Obama. The law that was the basis for the creation of special tribunals for trying captured terrorists had to go. That was Obama, the candidate.

Now, however, Obama the president has spoken. He did order the prison compound closed, but he wants to retain the military tribunal system – in modified form, of course. He will support the notion, heavily criticized by human rights organizations and liberal lawyers, that Guantanamo prisoners can’t be tried in civilian courts and need to be judged by special tribunals. Obama has come to the conclusion that he would be unsuccessful in convicting a number of detainees in civilian court – especially in view of the fact that many of their confessions were illegally obtained by torture. But neither can he set these hardcore al-Qaeda members free. So the only alternative remaining is to try them by military tribunal, albeit one that has been modified to give the accused more rights.

Didn’t Obama pull a similar switch just this week, when he reversed his own decision to release additional torture photos from United States military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan? Didn’t he decree that CIA agents who were involved in the mistreatment of terrorist suspects wouldn’t be prosecuted?

Shouldn’t even those lawyers who justified torture with abstruse arguments be granted immunity from prosecution? Shouldn’t we see this as the maturation of a candidate, who promised us the sky, to a president who quickly learned the realities of office? Is this the gradual transformation of a liberal to a centrist? This change is certainly also apparent.

But Obama is nothing if not a careful person – and a cautious politician. He never says never and, as a former lawyer from prestigious Harvard Law School, is accustomed to weighing his words carefully (despite the fact he is at times prone to making flippant remarks that he usually tries to immediately straighten out). But when crunch time comes, he picks his words very carefully. He has always done so, even as a candidate.

And so his White House advisers correctly point out that he never rejected doing away with military tribunals nor did he reject keeping them, as long as they made fair trials possible for the accused. In actuality, Senator Obama supported a similar Democratic bill three years ago under which not all prisoners would be necessarily tried by military tribunal. Some who were not accused of harming others could be tried in civilian courts.

Nonetheless, Obama’s deliberate ways have caused some political allies to become restive. The budget passed by the House on Thursday was light by some $80 million that the White House was counting on to close Guantanamo. That will only be approved after Obama comes up with a concrete timetable for its closure.

And no fewer than 51 Democrats voted against the White House supplemental bill to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are dissatisfied with the progress Obama is making in getting rid of the legacy left him by his predecessor. But up to now, Obama hasn’t had to fear these pinpricks. As one Washington wag noted, the left is like air as far as Obama is concerned: necessary for breathing but something he can safely ignore, secure in the knowledge it will always be there when he needs it.