5/27/09

This past weekend, two of America’s foremost experts on defense and security issues came out in full support of the President’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.  General Petraeus, CENTCOM commander, said that the detention center hurts our ability to maintain the moral high ground, harms our counterinsurgency efforts and serves as a major terrorist recruiting tool.  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a career intelligence and defense official who has dealt with imprisoning terrorists for 20 years, said this past Monday that the U.S. has imprisoned terrorist suspects many times and conservative opposition amounted to “fear mongering.”  The statements from Petraeus and Gates reflect a growing consensus among former senior officials, military officers, and national experts that Guantanamo must be closed. Yet conservatives continue political attacks that argue that closing Guantanamo will bring terrorists into our backyard and that its symbolic damage to America’s image is irrelevant. These arguments, as the President said in his speech last week, are not “rational.” Dangerous detainees would be transferred to some of the most secure prison facilities in the world – much more secure than the makeshift facility in Guantanamo. Furthermore, by undercutting America’s moral authority, Guantanamo has served to undermine one of America’s biggest international strengths. As President Obama noted, explained we must close Guantanamo because it has “weakened America.”

A consensus has emerged among respected officials and national security experts that closing Guantanamo is crucial to rebuilding America’s moral authority, which is vital for America’s national security.  A consensus has emerged among senior former national security officials, top military officers, and respected national security experts – from both sides of the aisle – that the detention facility at Guantanamo must be closed to revitalize America’s reputation and secure U.S. interests.  Over the Memorial Day weekend, CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus reiterated his support for restoring principled American leadership by closing Guantanamo and ending the practice of torture.  In the interview, Petraeus remarked that closing Guantanamo “sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.”  This statement echoed a 2007 letter from Petraeus to his troops, in which he wrote: “This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that, we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground.”  General Petraeus is just one of many high-profile national security figures who have come out to call for Guantanamo’s closing.  Secretary of Defense Gates, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, and the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, have also called for Guantanamo’s closing, as did then-candidate John McCain and then-President Bush in 2008. Gates argued that no matter what is done to improve the facility, it would always suffer from a “taint” that damages opinion of the U.S., because the “name itself is a condemnation.” A bipartisan panel made up of Secretaries Kissinger, Albright, Powell, Baker, and Christopher all agreed that closing Guantanamo Bay is vital for repairing the damage it has caused to America’s image. As James Baker, Secretary of State for George H.W. Bush, said: “Close Guantanamo. We were on a panel together several months ago, and we all agreed, one of the best things that could happen would be to close Guantanamo, which is a very serious blot upon our reputation.” [General Petraeus, 5/24/09. General Petraeus, 5/11/07. Harper’s Magazine, 12/18/08. CNN, 9/20/08. Secretary Gates, 5/22/09]

Gates: Uproar over transferring detainees to U.S. prisons is “fear mongering” – U.S. has incarcerated hardened terrorists for years. Many on the right have are now arguing that the American federal prison system cannot handle dangerous terrorists.  Just today Sen. Inhofe, reflecting what has become the consensus view among Senate Republicans, wrote in the Washington Times that brining Guantanamo detainees onto American soil “would place America and its citizens at risk.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “Americans don’t want terrorists plotting attacks against us anywhere. They certainly don’t want them doing so in our backyards, or down the road in the local prison.” And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich moved into the realm of hysterics, saying on closing Guantanamo that “the idea we're going to put alleged terrorists on welfare and have you pay for them and me pay for them, so they get to be integrated into American society.”  On the “Today” show last Friday, Secretary Gates offered a pointed rebuke: “The truth is, there's a lot of fear-mongering about this.”  He elaborated on this point, arguing that U.S. prisons were perfectly capable of holding detainees from Guantanamo: “We've never had an escape from a supermax prison, and that's where these guys will go; and if not one of the existing ones, we'll create a new one.” Drawing from his years of experience working for the CIA, he added that conservative counterarguments were historically baseless, saying “This started 20 years ago when I was at CIA, and we captured a Hezbollah terrorist who had been involved in killing an American sailor on an aircraft that had been taken hostage in Beirut. We brought him to the United States, put him on trial and put him in prison.” America’s prison system has a long history of holding terrorists, including the perpetrator of the first World Trade Center attacks, numerous 9/11 conspirators, the Shoe Bomber and Timothy McVeigh.  According to the National Journal, communities around these facilities are capable and willing to hold detainees: “Indeed, as home to four major prisons, Leavenworth is known for being pretty good at locking people up. The U.S. Penitentiary, built on federal land abutting the Army post, held some of the worst criminals of the 20th century... ‘Prison City,’ as Leavenworth is sometimes called, is best known for the Disciplinary Barracks, the only maximum-security prison in the military…‘Most of us who are former military in town are behind the effort, BECAUSE we know the capabilities of the USDB [U.S. Disciplinary Barracks] staff to handle the situation,’ [says] former Army Sgt. Jere Smith.”  As another resident and retiree said, “We are a prison city; that's what we do.” [James Inhofe, 5/27/09. Mitch McConnell, 5/20/09. NY Times, 5/20/09. VOA, 1/14/09. Secretary Gates, 5/22/09. National Journal, 1/31/09. 60 Minutes, 8/14/07]

Conservatives – led by Cheney – dismiss arguments that Guantanamo undermines America’s moral authority.  Conservatives endorsed counter-insurgency strategies in Iraq, but now oppose their key components -- maintaining the moral high ground and gaining the support of populations – as they apply to Guantanamo. Bill Kristol has dismissed closing Guantanamo as “entirely symbolic.” The former Vice President said that the notion that Guantanamo serves as a recruitment tool is just a theory.  He said in a speech last week, “This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, ‘We brought it on ourselves.’” A retired Air Force Major who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander – the interrogator who used legal means to locate the notorious terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – rebuts the Cheney argument that these programs fly in the face of U.S. interests and make Americans less safe: “I listened time and time again to foreign fighters, and Sunni Iraqis, state that the number one reason they had decided to pick up arms and join Al Qaeda was the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the authorized torture and abuse at Guantanamo Bay... The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” Furthermore, Vanity Fair reports, “Serving U.S. flag-rank officers… maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.” Symbolism costs lives, and the prison at Guantanamo has served as a major rallying cry for America’s enemies and has undercut America’s moral authority –historically a key component of America’s international strength.  [Dick Cheney, 5/21/09. FOX News, 5/11/09. Vanity Fair, 12/16/08]

What We’re Reading

North Korea “abandoned” the 1953 armistice that effectively ended the Korean War, restarted its nuclear reactor, and threatened to attack South Korea if any of its ships are searched for WMDs, just days after conducing nuclear and missile tests.  The New York Times examines what internal leadership struggles might be behind these aggressive moves.

A suicide bombing in Lahore, Pakistan killed at least 30 people.

Mexico arrested ten mayors suspected of involvement in the drug trade.

Chinese President Hu Jintao met the leader of Taiwan’s governing party in Beijing, a sign of thawing relations between China and Taiwan.

U.S.-sponsored Sunni militias in Iraq clash with the government.

President Obama integrated his national security staff to streamline decision-making.

Commentary of the Day

William J. Perry, Brent Scowcroft, and Charles D. Ferguson discuss how to reduce the nuclear threat in the face of North Korea’s recent actions.

Tim Reid visited Guantanamo and describes how much has changed since the days of harsh interrogations.  He adds that the new human rights issue is Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

The New York Times criticizes possible human rights violations on both sides of the Sri Lankan civil war and endorses calls for an inquiry into possible war crimes committed by both the government and the Tamil Tiger rebels.