Another complication in foreign policy for President Obama has been the non-status of those detained in Afghanistan at Bagram Airbase. Technically, assertions made by both this and the previous administrations that the facility is in a war zone and therefore exempt from habeas corpus are legally correct. The problem for the policy lies in the fact that there are people detained at Bagram whose captivity did not originate in Afghanistan, nor did these detainees come to be incarcerated as a result of combat related activities. Under these two conditions, the assertion for denial of habeas corpus becomes suspect. US District Judge John D. Bates on April 2nd ruled that for those not taken as a direct consequence of local combat-related activities habeas corpus should and will apply. There are at least three detainees at Bagram for whom this ruling applies. The administration and the military must take care in the use of the Bagram facility. If it seems that Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition policies are simply shifted to Bagram, then the campaign promises of President Obama have meant nothing. If the Obama administration fails in this, then the Republicans and conservatives will be able to re-coup their recent losses and re-establish their failed policies and War of Terror upon the world.
As I have written previously, the current administration’s continuance of slightly revamped Bush policy in counterterrorism activities is worrisome. Closing Guantanamo as an extra-territorial holding facility and ending secret prisons, supposedly already done in 2006, are great improvements, as is the executive order banning the use of harsh interrogation methods. But it seems there is something of a disconnect in the overall Obama reorganization. It seems in some ways that Obama is paying lip-service to the promise of reform in the execution of the War on Terror.
Claiming State Secrets in refusing to disclose information to United Kingdom courts over a matter of lawsuit brought by an admittedly wrongly imprisoned former detainee is also troubling. Although defense of the US against lawsuits and preservation of National Security secrecy are parts of the President’s responsibilities, this matter could have been handled with better response than a flat out denial. The UK court could have received sufficiently redacted evidence that would still have allowed the individual’s case to proceed. This is the government’s responsibility as in the original case, the US acted as prosecutor/accuser in asserting its right to hold the man. The UK case is not isolated; across the world there are hundreds of cases in which the current administration has claimed State Secrets in lawsuits alleging abuse, wrongful detention and extraordinary rendition. In many instances, it seems that judges have begun to side with those abused by Bush-era policy in the War on Terror. Many of these judges were Bush appointees, so there may be something of a political play in ruling against the Obama administration’s stance, but, then again, some of these rulings were made before the inauguration, but still after the election. The potential political dimension of this should encourage the current administration to drop the State Secrets claim and provide useful redacted documentation, if merely to blunt charges of continuing opacity.
Of course, full compliance with requests for release of even redacted documents produces another problematic situation. Reparations are necessary for those aggrieved through wrongful detention and other legacies of the Bush administration. Those wrongfully and illegally taken up in the War on terror are entitled to compensation for the many violations enacted upon them. However, successful litigation opens the door for more litigation and threatens a floodgate of legitimate and illegitimate suits. The potential cost to the US government is in the millions, easily.
These positions which President Obama has taken are not helpful to the improved image that he seeks for America to project. But, many on the Democratic side of the American political fence miss the complications inherent with true transparency when dealing with foreign and national security policy. Though I am somewhat disappointed with everything I have discussed here, I realize a few things that many on the left may have missed. I don’t have all the facts, and I’m not sure that I can call the administration wrong. It appears that all of these policy similarities run counter to what I expected from President Obama, but there are certain elements of these decisions over which I will never, and rightfully so, receive sufficient information to make the call. Most on the left are in the same position; they simply do not have enough information to have an informed opinion. An uninformed opinion as is useful and fact-based as a Rush Limbaugh diatribe. If we are to move forward, there are some areas where we are going to need to exhibit trust, but always with a healthy dose of skepticism. President Obama has already done much to restore the rule of law in prosecuting the War on Terror. He has strengthened our international relations and helped bolster our flagging reputation in the community of nations. Despite all the flap over bank bailouts, the market is beginning to show signs of recovering from its freefall. From these observations, I am able to suggest trust, but I still retain vigilant skepticism on anything where government’s actions seem suspect.
Here are some questions I ponder that help me query these and other events and policies:
What is there about this issue that I don’t know?
What is there that, for security reasons, I will never know?
Are the security reasons valid?
How is my personal bias affecting my judgment?
Is there something that is unmentioned but obvious?
Why is it unmentioned?
Is the unmentioning deliberate or accidental?
Again, why?
How do I rationally justify my position?
In all of this, I should mitigate my passion with reason and my reason with compassion.
No comments:
Post a Comment