I have just watched a TV report on the French mainstream channel TF1 which was indirectly dealing with the Guantanamo issue. Briefly, the report compared Guantanamo, a summum of horror and shame, to some Saudi “secret reeducation camp” where ex al-Qaeda operatives are gently re-civilized through drawings and with the helping hand of an imam who explains to them how badly they misinterpreted Islam. As far as I can remember, I have seen very stupid things on French TV during the Bush presidency, but nothing as surrealistic as this report. TF1 is not a good channel, but it is a mainstream one. When they broadcast something stupid, insulting and insane like that, it means that the public is, at least to a certain extent, ready to believe it.
Indeed, the report was introduced by the announcement of President Obama’s release of the so-called “torture memos”, along with the possibility that some officials from the Bush administration could be prosecuted. People from TF1 probably figured out that this particular piece of news would provide the perfect context for the bizarre report which followed, and that was probably a good professional judgment.
One thing seems perfectly clear when seen from outside America: this kind of announcement will only make these kinds of reports more frequent. Aside from the fact that it does not make a lot of sense to apologize on behalf of other people while prosecuting them at the same time, Obama’s current attitude will not make the United States look any better. It might make Obama look good, but that will come at the expense of his country. If Obama is Mandela, then the United States is South Africa.
Besides, a country where the newly elected President uses judicial procedures against the administration preceding him can get a bad press. When the opposition manages to score hits against the presidency, as happened in 1973 or 1998, it may still look like a healthy political system where the chief of the executive is not all-powerful. When it is the other way around, it gets a bit closer to a purge, and I fail to see how that sort of thing could do any good to America’s standing. Maybe the Obama administration has a few things to learn about “soft power”.
19 responses so far
1 kroner // Apr 21, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Obama knows perfectly well that a prosecution of the former administration looks bad, which is why he seems to wants nothing more than for people to just forget the last eight years ever happened. However he also promised transparency, and appointed an AG whose top priority is strict adherence to the rule of law. That may be unfortunate for both Obama’s political maneuverings, as well as the Bush administration officials who blatantly broke US and international law and undercut America’s image in the world, but it’ll spell out a victory for justice. That’s the best message the United States can possibly send to rest of the world right now.
2 mlindroo // Apr 21, 2009 at 11:31 pm
> Obama’s current attitude will not make the United States
> look any better. It might make Obama look good, but that
> will come at the expense of his country
The “United States” is *not* the same thing as alliance of individuals and organizations which put George W. Bush in power and kept him there for eight years. In fact, I am rather annoyed by the arrogance of former Bush officials and Republicans claiming otherwise … the United States is far bigger than you.
Fortunately.
MARCU$
3 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:07 am
I’m not sure what point is being made here. Releasing the torture memos was bad? Is that it? It wasn’t bad it was well nigh inevitable because of the legal proceedings that were in train. Most of it was in the public domain anyway so he was really making a virtue of necessity. he author of this piece also seems to have a shaky idea of how the US legal systm works. The newly elected president is not “using judicial procedures against the administration preceding him.” We have three branches of govt in this this country. When laws are broken all have powers to proceed against law breakers. The DOJ is most of the time regarded as a totally independant dept of govt that is required to follow the law. To some extent this is out of Obama’s hands as it should be.
4 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 6:30 am
I am not quite sure I understand why we must make an atonement to “the world community”? We act as if we were scooping up US citezens on street corners like, well much of the world does, and tossing them sans habius corpus into a gulag to die.
These people in Gitmo are ENEMY COMBATANTS…people who raised arms against the US and our armed forces. I don’t recall the Bill Of Rights applying to Al Qaeda.
It is only a matter of time before we become so eviscerated in our ability to gather intelligence and protect ourselves from those who have no scruples and couldn’t spell “geneva convention” if given 100 tries that another 9/11 will happen.
THEN what? Hey, we lost a million to anthrax in Boston, but hey, at least the world knows we’re true idealists!
5 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 7:00 am
Jeffryw
wrote 19 minutes ago
…More straw men. We haven’t lost million to anthrax in Boston nor are we going to. And all the folks in Gitmo were/are not enemy combatants. Bush released more than half of them after years of confinement because they were either completely innocent like these poor Uighars who are still there or minor players. The vast majority of people there were not apprehended by US troops at all but by tribal factions, bounty hunters etc. And no one is making atonement to the world community we’re just fessing up to making some dumb moves that have been largely counter productive. So far only one 9/11 has happened and Bush deserves some credit for this just as he deserves some criticism for allowing it to happen after he received warning. The notion that just because we’ve stopped torturing people and closed a lot of these secret prisons that were doing more for Al Quaeda than us means dropped all our defenses is basically childish.
6 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:21 am
“We are either an example to the world or we are no better that the terrorists, it’s that simple.”
How about a nation just protecting itself. I have no interest in being “an example” to a world that hates us because of our success and power. No one roots for Goliath.
The people who come here and enjoy our freedoms know enough about this nation and what it promises without dangerously naive gestures that strip pour ability to protect ourselves to make an example to a world that is a voilent and dangerous place where nice guys finish last and conciliatory gestrues are often as a sign of weakness.
When will you lefty dreamers get it through your sheltered heads that the world is NOT a nice place nor is it friendly to the US. Every nation of consequence believes in Realpolitik…despite what the great unwashed who fawn over Obama (with a “peace sign in the ‘O’) demonstrate.
I have no interest in weakening my country to placate the faux outrage of a world that we have kept out of the dark ages through our own force of ARMS…not goodwill.
I really have no interest in my president going to Europe and fessing up our “crimes” to the architects of WW1, WW2 etc.
7 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:27 am
“…More straw men. We haven’t lost million to anthrax in Boston nor are we going to.”
Otto, not only is that a statement of blind arrogance. How the heck do YOU know what the dangers of the world have in store for us? Og right, like your messiah, and the left in general, you construct an interally viewed world as you WISH IT TO be and then approach it from that angle.
I guarantee you that on 9/10 you would have poo-poohed the notion of the WTC towers being knocked down in one morning…as would I have I admit. But NOW is not then and NOW intelligent people able to view the world through our enemies’ glasses (as all GOOD foreign policy architects can) know that anything is possible.
You are one of those “September 10th” people. Someone who believes that if we ignore threats, or try to placate the sources of those threats, they will just go away. Well, there is a real world out there that I hate to tell you, eats naive chumps like you ALIVE.
So serve yourself up if you want…you and your apologist “president of teh world.” I prefer to stay alert, and stay alive. I don’t presume to think that something cannot happen in the future, just because I wish wit were not so.
8 krove // Apr 22, 2009 at 8:36 am
“You are one of those “September 10th” people. Someone who believes that if we ignore threats, or try to placate the sources of those threats, they will just go away. Well, there is a real world out there that I hate to tell you, eats naive chumps like you ALIVE”
Bush was the supreme September the 10th person. He dismissed the warnings with the words “You have covered your ass, now go away”
That really was “staying alert” in a big way.
Just because we do not torture any more does not mean we are not alert, we have all the tools we need to interrogate detainees. Top interrogators were appalled at the torture we used, they agree that there are far better ways.
Just because we are liberals and believe in the rule of law does not make us weak on the terrorists. Bush avoided capturing Bin Laden at Torra Borra. He could have pursued him but did not.
9 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 9:15 am
“Bush was the supreme September the 10th person. He dismissed the warnings with the words “You have covered your ass, now go away”
Interesting. Can you provide for me the documentation for that quote? I see now in your world of make believe that 9/11 is all Bush’s fault, even though it had been orchestrated and planned for years before under Clinton and the protection of high walls deividing intelligence and his terrorism is a legal matter umbrella? Gotcha. Anyway. Source that quote please. (And no, voices in your head are not credible sources).
“Just because we do not torture any more does not mean we are not alert, we have all the tools we need to interrogate detainees.”
Really? And you know this based on…
“Top interrogators were appalled at the torture we used, they agree that there are far better ways.”
Which ones? Name them please.
“Just because we are liberals and believe in the rule of law (unless it goes against them in voting then they run to the courts but whatever) does not make us weak on the terrorists.”
Actually, um YES, it does. The rule of law doesn’t apply to scum terrorists bent on killing you and everyone you care about.
“Bush avoided capturing Bin Laden at Torra Borra. He could have pursued him but did not.”
So he consciously said “don’t caputure him” (Avoid?) or did they miss him because of botched tactics that relied too much on local warlords???
When it comes to conscious decisison to not ake out Bin Laden, don’t you mean Clinton on many many occasions? But again, this is not about the past but the here and now…and the future which you seem to be able to predict. I don’t have that clairvoiance.
Your people’s naivete and arrogance at the same time is going to get a lot of decent people in this country wasted my man. That is as plain to see as the elongating nose on your face.
10 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:07 am
I notice you still don’t source ANY of the materials you proffer as fact just because, well, that’s the faux reality you’ve constructed around yourself.
“He dismissed the warnings with the words “‘You have covered your ass, now go away’”
Where is the source for this one K-Rover?? *crickets*
Look, you make many many claims and never once back them up with anything factual. And what you very often levy extremely serious accusations against real individuals…so who does the insulting?
It is not an insult to call an orange an orange. And it is not insulting to call a naive person naive. Nor an insult to call a person who fabricates tales a liar. Not unless he proves me otherwise. You have never done so.
What IS insulting is to make vicious claims against people, even going so far as putting quotations on the words you contruct out of you own head as theirs, and not provide any documentation.
It tells you live in a world of make-believe constructed not by the historical record but rather your own lefty loon predjudices, totally separet from reality, which border on manic visceral hatred of individuals no longer even in power.
11 ottovbvs // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:12 am
Jeffryw
wrote 48 minutes ago
“Your people’s naivete and arrogance at the same time is going to get a lot of decent people in this country wasted my man.”
…….Unfortunately, unless you’d noticed the naivete and ignorance of people who think like you has already got a lot of decent people in the this country wasted my man. Starting with the 3000 killed on 9/11 and moving onto the roughly 4300 killed in Iraq. Trotting out all the old blame shifting formulas isn’t going to cut it. I don’t think Bush could probably have prevented 9/11 but he might have had he been paying more attention. The Osama determined to attack memo and the CYA comment are well documented as you well know.
12 sinz54 // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:30 am
Jeffryw sez: “The rule of law doesn’t apply to scum terrorists bent on killing you and everyone you care about. “
So as far as you are concerned, there are no limits to what America can do to high-value detainees like K.L.M.? Thumbscrews? Electrodes attached to the genitals? Rape of female prisoners, just as Saddam used to order?
I always suspected that the argument “Oh, well, waterboarding isn’t really torture” is a red herring. Let’s talk about REAL torture, the type I just described. Is that OK also, as far as you’re concerned?
13 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:55 am
Sinz54. That is overly simplistic and a poor comparison.
Torture for torture’s sake ala Saddam getting his jollies out of punishing political oppoenents and striking fear into the hearts of his subjected peoples is one thing. It’s called sadism.
Torturing a man because he will not talk under conventional questioning and yet time is running out as he may know crucial intelligence to thwart another 9/11 is perfectly acceptable.
You equate torturing innocents with torturing guilty I guess. Liberal moral relativism.
Let me tell you something about the world. The USA must live in it. Not above it. What you see as a “strength” to wit: being a nice guy in the face of animals the world that wishes us harm views as weakness and, worse, opportunity.
You people in your comfy chairs, having ZERO intelligence knowledge other than what you read in the NY Times and the alphabet news channels have no clue what is at stake. And arm chair pacifists like yourselves all puffy and self-congratulatory about how “moral” you are can do so because others were willing to do what it took to keep you safe not against innocents (which always gets lose here) but against vermine who wouldl decapitate your little kids with glee if given the chance and praise “Allahu Akhbar!” while they do it.
Wake up. The world is an uglay place and a personality cult like Obama cannot change that.
It will take another major terrorsit event to make you see that…for a while at least.
14 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 10:58 am
Krove. I get angry when fools who think they can arrogantly project their vision of the world as they wish it were onto those who will turn that very naivete against us to do us harm have power over my country and indirectly my life.
I also get angry when self-deludud persons continue to make outlandish claims with absolutely no concrete sourcing to back them up but you already know that don’t you?
15 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:19 am
Ottobvs. Here’s is how we view things differently. You talk about 3000 here 4300 there as a lot of people killed.
As if 9/11 was the worst that could happen. (And of course we lost 4300 Americans in one corfield at Antietam in three hours fighting but that is neither here nor there, just an interesting tid-bit).
I am talking about a potential attack that could wipe out hudreds of thousands in not millions. A bio attach. A small nuclear device (Iran anyone?). Or sabotaging an existing nuclear power plant.
You people think so small. Your (at least MY) enemies do not. They killed 3000 people on 9/11 because they could not kill 3,000,000.
16 mlindroo // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:20 am
Jeffryw:
“….fools who think they can arrogantly project their vision of the world as they wish it were…”
(You mean, like, Iraq will become a pro-American democracy and we will be treated as liberators??)
“…self-deludud persons continue to make outlandish claims with absolutely no concrete sourcing to back them up… “
(Like, Cheney stubbornly insisting that Saddam had WMDs for years and years after the invasion??)
“…Torturing a man because he will not talk under conventional questioning and yet time is running out as he may know crucial intelligence to thwart another 9/11 is perfectly acceptable…”
Thanks for using the T word rather than the usual newspeak term ["enhanced interrogation techniques"]. Perhaps you’d care to comment on the recent news that Cheney and Rumsfeld were leaning hard to the interrogators to come up with evidence of an Al Qaeda-Saddam connection to justify the invasion.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
Look, I accept the claim that everybody involved (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice etc.) was motivated by the noblest of concerns for the nation’s safety. But this does not change the basic fact, which is that some absolutely horrible errors of judgment have been made in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and in general in Iraq. And the biggest error of all has been to shoot/attack first without properly investigating the facts and likely consequences. It is a widely known fact that prior to 9/11, the Bush Administration was not particularly interested in transnational terrorist organizations. The big overriding obsession was “rogue states” such as Iraq, so this is was Cheney & co. automatically assumed had to be addressed.
MARCU$
17 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:29 am
Ottobvs. Here’s is how we view things differently. You talk about 3000 here 4300 there as a lot of people killed.
As if 9/11 was the worst that could happen. (And of course we lost 4300 Americans in one corfield at Antietam in three hours fighting but that is neither here nor there, just an interesting tid-bit).
I am talking about a potential attack that could wipe out hudreds of thousands in not millions. A bio attach. A small nuclear device (Iran anyone?). Or sabotaging an existing nuclear power plant.
You people think so small. Your (at least MY) enemies do not. They killed 3000 people on 9/11 because they could not kill 3,000,000.
18 Jeffryw // Apr 22, 2009 at 11:52 am
General Question to all:
Why is it that Obama is more than willing to release for public consumption our tirture methods, but NOT do as Cheney suggests and declassify all memos concerning what intelligence was gleaned, what plots foiled, by the interrogation of high level Al Qaeda detainess in the wake of September 11.
And why would Cheney of all people suggest this if we did NOT get anything for our efforts of value enough that he is will to submit it to the sunlight of a hostile media’s scrutiny??
Hmmmm
19 sinz54 // Apr 22, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Jeffryw: I can only speculate. One possibility is that some of that intelligence resulted in leads that the FBI and CIA are still following up on. To reveal it would compromise some ongoing investigations.
BTW, notice that if I am right, then even Obama’s liberal advisers believe that the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine does not apply to intelligence gathering. In a criminal investigation, if evidence is illegally obtained, then not only is that evidence inadmissible, but so is any evidence that stems from it.
Whereas in the hunt for al-Qaeda, Obama has not said that intelligence obtained through extreme measures will be discarded. That was the hidden message in all his verbiage about “looking forward, not behind.”
You must log in to post a comment.