Are We Safer Or Not? Does It Really Matter?

Dick Cheney affirms that the US is now much less safe from terrorism because President Obama has banned "torture." Obama released the legal memos authorising the use of intensive interrogation techniques and made noises about closing Gitmo. As one the Right stood and did the wave in a paroxysm of agreement with Cheney.

On the other side, assorted people of the Left maintain that the doctrines and practices of the Bush-Cheney years did nothing to assure the US was safe from the tender ministrations of the Islamist jihadists of the world. On top of that, the Thunderers From The Left following the baton of Nancy Pelosi hold that they were lied to repeatedly and effectively by the evil doers of CIA and the crafty minions of the previous administration generally.

Both sides can agree on only one fact. The US has not been directly attacked since the bleak day of 9/11. Beyond that they can agree on nothing. Not even what can, should or must be done to continue the record of the past seven years, eight months and thirteen days.

Some of the considerations raised in the past few days are totally irrelevant to addressing the primary issues. Are we safer or not since the Obama "reforms?" Do the Obama driven changes really matter in looking at the question of immunity from terrorist attack? And, what are the necessities for continuing future freedom from both attack and the enervating fears surrounding potential attack?

On Obama's actions an accurate parsing of effect is easy to do. Releasing the legal memos has no impact on the continuation of our collective safety from terrorist attack. The methods employed were already well known and widely discussed. The knowledge and discussion extended to the assorted Islamist jihadist websites. The release of the legal thinking of the assorted Bush vintage lawyers in no way compromised the American capacity to elicit actionable intelligence from captured enemy combatants.

The release of these memos particularly if eventually accompanied by assessments evaluating the usefulness of the enhanced interrogation methods might serve to show how limited the utility of severe physical pressure actually is. That would ultimately demonstrate that other approaches to acquiring information are not only better but carry no moral baggage.

The President's decision not to release the photos and videos showing prisoner abuse at the hands of US personnel after having initially agreed to do so was well advised. The reasons adduced by Obama for this seeming flip-flop are both well rooted and self evident. The gratuitous release of the photos would only inflame hostile emotions with the result that US personnel, citizens and interests would face greater risks. It is regrettable that the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and similar groups cannot understand this--or that they understand it but are indifferent to the results.

Closing Gitmo is not at all complex. The vitriol and fear provoked by the possibility of closing the facility at Gitmo and relocating the 240 more or less inmates in federal facilities surpasses rational understanding. The initial reason for putting the assorted "illegal enemy combatants" and others suspected of terrorist inclinations at Gitmo was the desire of the Bush-Cheney administration to assure that those detained would not have access to the federal courts. By holding them off shore it would be possible to have the lads available for interrogation while preventing some hypothetical "bleeding heart" federal judge from releasing them.

Beyond that original reason there was a desire for vengeance suitably disguised as justice. After all, these guys were most assuredly enemies of the US who had fostered and facilitated terror attacks on the US. The military commission, particularly when coupled with measures carefully calculated to maximise the potential of conviction, seemed a fine way to get the emotional (and political) rewards of wreaking vengeance while posing as administering justice.

The use of military commissions in and of itself is neither without precedent nor inherently unjust. With reforms such as those mentioned by President Obama, such as the barring of statements obtained under coercion or hearsay testimony, the accusations holding military commissions to be unjust would be undercut.

(The Geek recommends that those who oppose the use of military commissions read the manuals outlining the processes of courts-martial and the military court of appeals as well as the relevant sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If they were do to do so, they might be (pleasantly) surprised to see that the military justice system is remarkably jealous in its protection of the rights of the accused. It is no way a drumhead system--although on occasion it has been perverted by over zealous convening officers.)

Without the justification of keeping enemy combatants (legal or otherwise) and other suspected terrorists out of the reach of the federal courts, there is no real, compelling need to keep the Gitmo slammer running. Howls of public safety such as have been made by assorted Republicans are absurd.

The federal slammers are already holding (typically at the Florence, Colorado supermax) a prime selection of very, very bad guys including the men behind the first attack on the World Trade Center and the Unibomber. As the President pointed and accurately noted, none have escaped. And, none are likely to.

This being the case the risks of closing Gitmo are slim to none. The benefits, as SecDef Gates has commented, are high. Gitmo has become an international symbol of America acting at its worst. This significance may be undeserved, but in the war against Islamist jihadists, symbols and their manipulation are critical.

ATTENTION! There is a thunderstorm approaching and the Geek's solar system must be shut down. So must the satellite. Have to finish this when the weather improves. See you tomorrow, weather permitting.