Faking It

Posted on by

Why am I not surprised?

President Obama’s plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials — barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees — discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is “scattered throughout the executive branch,” a senior administration official said. The executive order Obama signed Thursday orders the prison closed within one year, and a Cabinet-level panel named to review each case separately will have to spend its initial weeks and perhaps months scouring the corners of the federal government in search of relevant material.

I agree with the Talking Dog that this bears all the signs of people desperately flailing around trying to cover their asses.

12 thoughts on “Faking It”

  2. Neither will I be surprised when they find the closed circuit video screens in Cheney’s office that allowed him to kick back and take in the waterboarding and other “harsh interrogation techniques” (formerly known as torture) for his viewing enjoyment.

    I had the idea that those interned in America’s near-home version of Abu Graib were followed in an unprecedently detailed way by some in the WHite House as if they were their own private voodoo dolls, perhaps wishing that whatever they were subjected to would be felt by Bin Laden or anyone else sympathizing with him.

    Call it wide-eyed conspiracy theory or not. Without more to go on we cannot prove this didn’t happen. OK, that neo-con wingnut thing about being unable to prove the non-existence of something (which can be used in attempting to give credence to any fearful scenario) was tongue in cheek as was most of this but lost emails, IT guy dead in plane crash, singling out reporters for surveillance etc.is all such lunacy that nothing is a stretch for these guys. They never could really delegate much either.

    Draw your own conclusions…

  4. The title of the article at Talking Dog is ‘Backsliding will not be Acceptable’ The preimise seems to be that since Bush has been wrong r deceptive about everything, we can assume that where files are missing, it’s because there is not enough proof for conviction and we should therefore release.

    I disagree. We must release those individuals who we can’t prosecute. We don’t know who we can prosecute, and who was unfailry caught in the wide net that Bush cast. There are fish and there are sharks in the net. We can’t separate them without information.

    Blindly releasing them is a dangerous game! Suppose we release someone who we could prosecute, because there is untainted evidence. Let that guy perform a crime against civilians anywhere in the world, and it could cost us the election in 2012. Period.

    I did NOT say, ‘let’s keep them all’. I said try them or release them – one or the other. But we can’t make decisions about cases until we have information.

  5. Oh Christ: no one is saying that if there is reliable evidence to charge someone, we shouldn’t charge someone. [That’s the whole point: there are over 200 guys there, and only a dozen or so have been “charged” and most of those are falling apart as it is. So… ipso facto… ]

    But if there is, in fact, no reliable evidence… that’s quite different. I submit that there is, in fact, no reliable evidence. The Bush Administration has known for years it was going to eventually have to justify these detentions. Occams Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is the most likely: the simplest is that the fuck-ups who lied to us about WMDs in Iraq and everything else they ever touched have simply lied about “the evidence” of GTMO detainees. Why not? They wouldn’t let anyone see any of it, calling it “classified”… so who could rebut them? Well… the courts that have seen it thus far… by and large don’t buy it.

    It’s a race now, anyway: if Obama doesn’t act decisively, the courts will probably go a long way toward emptying the place in the not too distant future, and Obama will have lost the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to rule of law.

  6. The post at Talking Dog just kind of rolls me back to a week ago when Bush was still president and everything still stank and we were panting for payback. Now our guy’s been in office 3-4 days and already his stock is down 3-4 points, says Gallup. That tells us less about Obama than it does about our impatience and willingness to rush to judgment.

    One of the key elements of the Obama presidency is Obama’s avowedly serious support of the law and of government transparency. I’m willing to wait and see for longer than five days! We know Bush/Cheney are corrupt liars and we already know that many of those held for years were innocent, but we don’t know a damn thing about individuals who remain at Gitmo. Does it make sense to assume we know enough because we know their captors all too damn well? Maybe, but I don’t think so.

    So we back off until we know more. Keep feet to fire, keep a close eye on how the cases are handled, see whether treatment of detainees is being substantially improved in the interim, look for who stashed files where, etc.

    I join Talking Dog in horror and disgust at all that has passed and agree that justice delayed is justice denied. Meanwhile, the Washington Post report (shocker) suggests to me that more shoes will be dropping. There’s that CNN report on more apparent last-minute lies from the previous administration; and we have yet to hear from the diligent lawyers at Georgetown and elsewhere who have been defending (or attempting to defend) prisoners; and there’ll be more. And more.

  7. Why would Obama not think that some historical line in the sand, for a practice that causes genuine fear in the minds of many Americans, given a Pandora’s box of practices ostensibly for use on axis of evil bad guys, not be an absolute necessity?

    Political expediency? Priorities of the moment?

    I would not expect any larger proportion than Bushes approval rating upon leaving to resist getting to the bottom of possible criminal acts. If we cannot expect compliance with the law from the top then we might as well resign ourselves to anarchy.

    I only think of things like the Lotto, promised to direct profilt to education at time of inception but years later there is no obligation to stick to the original promise. Warrantless eavesdropping was first only for foreign nationals, then international calls having a domestic endpoint, then domestic calls.

    Firewalls and lines in the sand are good things. Experience has taught us as much.

    But legislation and special prosecutors are Congress’ job. Obama cannot stop that but he can give it a wink and a nod then refuse to veto.

    This is serious stuff and must be approached with extreme care. I’d think once facts have all been assembled as can best be done that some political calculation is in order. Proceeding without reasonable certainty of success might not be advisable.

    There are also effective ways to investigate and leave historical markers which stop short of seeking conviction. Exposing even the wrong practices such as hiding or losing records can be a prelude to stiffers laws that obligate an adminstration NOT to “misplace” records. However, the next time the American people allow an unruly mob such as the Republican party to occupy high office they can just reverse the progress made by way of legislation.

  8. I am put in mind of the scene in ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ where the townspeople are asked, “How do you know she’s a witch?” (featuring the ever-popular “She turned me into a newt! …Well…I got better…)

    For years various Bushistas have been confidently telling us about the worst of the worst, and Darth Cheney still says it, and now we find out they don’t even have case files???

    How do you know they’re the worst of the worst? “Well, it’s in their case file…uh.. only I don’t have it right here.”

    Bah.

  11. If I were Barack Obama I’d be publicly distancing myself from investigations into the Bush Administration also. However, that doesn’t mean he’s not quietly encouraging Congress to get something started. I don’t know that’s what he’s doing, but that’s what I would do in his position.

Comments are closed.