Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer on Guantanamo Controversy
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:13:09 EDT
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

Transferring Some  Guantanomo Detainees to the U.S. Will Actually Make  
America  Safer 

By launching the bruhaha over transferring some  Guantanamo detainees to 
the U.S.,  the Republican Right has hit another low on the demagoguery meter.  
Some Democrats in Congress themselves  wilted in the face of the onslaught. 
 Luckily, President Obama did not. 
The fact is, of  course, that transferring some of the Guantanamo  
detainees to the U.S. will  actually make America safer.   
The bloviators on Fox  News paint pictures of terrorists running free in 
the streets once they have  been released by hapless courts, or escaped from 
prison.  Of course that’s ridiculous.   
As President Obama  pointed out in his Thursday National Archives security 
speech, there are  hundreds of terrorists, murderers, rapists and other 
terrifying types that have  been tried and convicted by American courts and held 
safely behind bars.   In fact, no one has ever escaped a  federal “super max
” prison.  The Washington Post reported this  morning that “thirty-three 
international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda,  reside in a single 
federal prison in Florence, Colorado, with little pubic  notice.” 
Obama quoted  Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who said the idea that we 
can’t find places  to put 350 detainees in the United States is simply not  
rational. 
Neither, by the way,  is the focus of some Republicans on the report 
showing that 14% of the 500-plus  detainees that have been released thus far from 
Guantanamo have engaged in new acts opposing the United  States.  
First, of course, these people  were released by the Bush Administration or 
the Courts – not Obama.  They were released mainly because they  shouldn’t 
have been in detention in the first place.  Many were the products of 
bounty hunters  who received rewards for turning people in. And that was so even 
though former  Guantanamo Commander, General Geoffrey Miller (later of Abu 
Graib fame) assured  Members of Congress that all of the detainees in 
Guantanamo were “bad guys.”  That, of course, is why we have due  process: to 
determine if the people that the General Miller’s of the world think  are “bad 
guys” really are. 
Second, you’d expect some of  those released to “reoffend.”  It’s  not 
too surprising that some of the folks we held without trial for years might  
be a bit miffed at the U.S.  Unfortunately Guantanamo itself probably created 
a number of future  terrorists who weren’t inclined in that direction at 
all when they were first  swept off the streets of Afghanistan, Pakistan or 
Bosnia.  Finally, let’s remember that almost two  thirds of all those released 
from U.S. prisons re-offend.   That the number from Guantanamo is only 14% 
is  probably a tribute to the fact that most detainees had no business being 
 detainees. 
But why take the  “chance” by bringing additional Guantanamo detainees to 
our shores?  Because it is critically important to  our national security 
that we close Guantanamo – and such a step is probably  necessary to make that 
possible. 
There is little  doubt that the existence of Guantanamo – coupled  with the 
Bush administration’s use of torture and “extraordinary rendition”  --were 
powerful symbols used to recruit more terrorists than have ever been held  
in Guantanamo  itself. 
Guantanamo helped to  convince young Muslims that the West does not respect 
them or their culture --  and that all of our talk about democratic values 
is just so much hypocrisy.   
Fundamentally, the failure  of the Bush-Cheney policy was rooted in the 
fact that they ignored a critical  component of human nature: more than 
anything else people want a sense of  meaning and identity – and their corollary: 
respect.   
You can lock up and kill all  of the Muslim “terrorists” you want.  But if 
your approach humiliates, disparages and enrages young Muslims who  may 
never even have thought before about becoming “terrorists” themselves, you  
will lose the “War on Terror” – you make Americans less  safe. 
In 2007, John Esposito and  Dalia Mogahed published Who Speaks for  Islam?, 
a book based on Gallup’s World Poll – the largest study of  Muslim 
attitudes ever undertaken.  The polling shows that Muslims have a profound sense 
that their culture,  and the religious traditions that in many ways define 
their sense of personal  identity, have been disrespected by Americans and 
former American leadership.  This feeling is particularly pronounced among the 
segment of respondents the  study characterized as “radicalized Muslims” – 
those most likely to support or  join groups like al-Qaeda.  
To many young  “radicalizable” Muslims, Guantanamo is one of the most 
power symbols of  that disrespect. 
And to the people of our  allies and potential allies around the world, 
Guantanamo is a symbol that America  abandoned its democratic values. Its 
continued existence makes it more difficult  for them to work with us to protect 
our mutual  security. 
In order to close  Guantanamo we  have to move the detainees somewhere.  We’
d like our allies to take a number of those detainees, but that is  wholly 
unlikely if we refuse to move any into the United States  ourselves. After 
all, the U.S. created this problem – they  didn’t.  
Just as important, a  number of the current detainees should be tried by 
America courts  for violation of the law.  For that  purpose they must be 
moved to the United States.   
This debate played out  yesterday as part of dueling speeches by President 
Obama and former  Vice-President Cheney.   
All that remains of Cheney’s  “undisclosed location” is his marginality on 
the American political  landscape.  In his speech he  demonstrated openly 
the recklessness that so weakened America  during his eight-year reign.  
Most fundamentally,  Obama’s speech distinguished America’s security 
policy from the  Bush-Cheney years in two critical ways: 
1). Obama asserted  that our values are our most important national 
security  asset. These values not only include  America’s commitment to human 
rights  and due process of law, but a commitment to respecting other people and 
treating  them the way we ourselves would want to be treated.  Obama 
understands clearly that nothing  will do more to help us win the underlying battle 
for the hearts and minds of  young people across the world than the 
application of that kind of moral  force. 
2). Obama utterly discarded the Bush-Cheney  doctrine that in matters 
involving national security there is a “Unitary  Executive.”  This view was most 
 eloquently elaborated by that great philosopher Richard Nixon as, “ if the 
 President does it, that makes it legal.” In other words, Obama reaffirmed 
our  traditional belief that this is a “nation of laws” and that no one – 
not even  the President – is above them. 
We are now discovering  the many ways that Bush and Cheney used the theory 
of the “Unitary Executive” to  eviscerate our values and disregard the 
Constitution.  It will take some time for President  Obama to clean up the mess 
they created – including Guantanamo. 
In the meantime,  Progressives should be thrilled that Cheney has taken it 
upon himself lead the  rearguard Neo-Con battle to defend their failed 
national security policy.  Cheney’s personal unpopularity with the voters is a 
testament to Abraham  Lincoln’s view that you can’t fool all the people, all 
the time.  In fact, from the Progressive point of  view it is hard to 
imagine a better choice for General in Chief of the  Conservative forces than Dick 
Cheney.  To paraphrase his former partner: Bring him  on. 
Robert Creamer is a longtime  political organizer and strategist, and 
author of the recent book “Stand Up  Straight: How Progressives Can Win,” 
available on _Amazon.com._ 
(http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Your-Mother-Straight-Progressives/dp/0979585295/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213241439&sr=8-1)

**************Recession-proof vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
the U.S. 
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/national-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---