On Gitmo, again

Cesar Conda frets about post-9/11 prisoners, while I question the heart of the fretting

 

Cesar Conda: Buried by yesterday’s news coverage of the Sotomayor nomination was the official report released by the Pentagon showing that one of every seven — or 14 percent — of suspected terrorists formerly held at Gitmo are either confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism.  

No wonder Democrats — even staunch liberals like Senator Barbara Boxer — are worried about transferring Gitmo detainees to their States. “We only have one max security prison in California and it’s, right now, overbooked, that’s the case,” Boxer told CNN. “In all, we are worried and we want to to see what the plan is.” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/24/boxer-worried-about-transferring-gitmo-detainees/

Senate Democrats shouldn’t be worried at all. This politically brilliant Administration is likely to propose transferring the Gitmo terrorism suspects to States represented by Senate Republicans, whose votes they would lose anyway on the bill to fund the closing of Gitmo. 

You heard it here first.

 

My response: 

Cesar, I appreciate the tone of your notice and others of yours on this subject, even the giddier of them (re: Yucca Mountain Home for Terrorists), and I appreciate the understanding you have for the political difficulties (I second your Republican district incarceration hunch) and enormous legal complexities. In that spirit, I want to respond to a couple of things. 14% recidivism is not a number in a vacuum. It’s a much lower percentage than the recidivism for our home-grown non-political prison population which is around 60%–higher or lower depending on the amount a time served and the crime committed. But comparatively, 14% recidivism is not just measurably but significantly lower than the recidivism for this country’s non-political prisoners. 

My question–and at the risk of refighting the last war–given that the last administration assured the public that all the post-9/11 prisoners were the worst of the worst terrorists captured in the field, and given the last administration’s public fears about releasing post-9/11 prisoners because they might return to the field of battle, why did the last administration release so many at-risk recidivists? I mean, released them without charge? Released them without trial? My point is: Perhaps 14% was considered an acceptable risk. And perhaps 86% of the released post-9/11 prisoners that have not returned to terrorists activities was an acceptable reward.

Former Vice President Cheney joked the other day that perhaps we were too lenient. But if we’re going to discuss the 14% we must discuss the 86% and honestly debate the rewards and risks. I don’t mean necessarily to question the decision to release these post-9/11 prisoners but to question the way in which the post-9/11 prisoners were characterized to the public–again, last war stuff, no doubt. I’ll get to the remaining post-9/11 prisoners below. For now, I also don’t mean to diminish the risk of 14% recidivism but ask that we consider that percentage in the context of both post-9/11 prisoner populations in U.S. custody and non-political prisoners in U.S. custody. Naturally, the post-9/11 prisoners remaining in Guantanomo pose a higher recidivist risk–otherwise they’d have been released already– though a third have already been cleared for release.

But because of the recidivist risks, all the remaining post-9/11 prisoners should be charged with civilian or military crimes, put on trial in civilian or military courts, and if or when found guilty, sentenced to civilian or military super-maximum prisons. I won’t touch on the fate of Guantanomo or the prison debate per se; you and I are too far apart on that one, my good friend. Another day. But capture/conviction or capture/release of political and non-political prisoners contains risks and rewards. That’s one of the difficult and complex consequences of fighting and capturing Jihadist mercenaries in today’s world. We should have a serious debate about that and not delude ourselves with political en garde-ism.

This post originally appeared on Politico’s Arena.

Subscribe (RSS) to Take 2

Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

Should Obama change course on GITMO? If not, where should detainees be sent?

No perfect solution

Guantanamo might be the greatest, cleanest, best run prison facility since Robbin Island in the eyes of its defenders, but it remains a fresh black 21st century stain on America’s reputation as a country that values due process and human rights, and no amount of nativist panic in Congress will change that fact. As I wrote yesterday on this topic, of the 240 prisoners there, “a third of these have been cleared some time ago to be sent home without charges.

Another third are being kept because the military believes there is evidence to try them– whether in military or in federal courts, where, by the way, there is precedent for shielding the public from classified evidence–though only two dozen have actually been charged and of these only three have been brought to trial. Finally, of the other third, there lacks evidence to charge these individuals with anything–although intelligence officials insist these prisoners are too risky to set free.

They’re the ones who have to be dealt with, and they were going to have to be dealt with whether Guantanomo is kept open or not.” It’s a difficult decision. President Bush struggled with it too and passed it on to the next administration.

There will be no perfect solution. To answer the question then: Continue with plans to close Guantanamo. Reaffirm to the letter our trust in the Geneva Conventions. Afford detainees the right of habeas corpus and due process. Transfer some detainees to super-maximum security prisons in the U.S. and others–who are in fact prisoners of war–to the NATO detention system in Afghanistan. And, finally, develop a repatriation program with international partners to return non-convicted detainees to their home countries.

This post originally appeared on Politico’s Arena.

Subscribe (RSS) to Take 2

Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

Tortured, Part 3

Cesar Conda, Republican strategist, former Romney and Cheney advisor:

On Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001, my domestic policy staff and I were preparing for our weekly 9:00 a.m. policy briefing with Vice President Cheney. It was a brilliant and crisp fall morning. I hardly ever opened the window in my office in the Old Executive Office Building, but I did that day to get some of the fresh fall air circulating, instead of breathing the air being pumped out of the old Carrier window air conditioning unit.

As we were discussing the Social Security “lock-box” and other “important” issues of the day we were going raise with the Vice President, the television in my office was beaming in pictures of what we thought at the time was an unfortunate commuter plane crash somewhere in New York City. It looked like it had accidently crashed on top of one of the World Trade Center buildings.

We continued our meeting, while at the same time keeping a close eye on the television. Minutes later, to our utter shock, we saw the jetliner careen into other tower. We knew that America was under attack. We never met with the Vice President that morning.

Outside my office, there was a lot of commotion, with the Secret Service agents scurrying up and down the marbled hallway of the OEOB. I then heard a low-level rumble or boom in the distance outside my window, which sent chills up my spine. I didn’t know it at the time, but this boom was the sound of the airplane slamming into the Pentagon just across the Potomac river.

I then went out into the hallway of my office, where an OVP staffer told me that one of the Secret Service agents had told him that another airplane was headed toward the White House, and that we should keep away from the windows facing the West Wing. Minutes later, the guards were screaming to everyone to “move” and “run” out of the White House complex.

As staffers were streaming out of the building, I noticed that everyone was looking skyward. It was utter chaos in the streets surrounding the White House, as people were scrambling to leave Washington. As I crossed the Roosevelt Bridge, I saw the thick black column of smoke rising above the Pentagon. I could even smell it. I thought to myself, “How could this happen in America?”

Early the very next morning, September 12, I went back to the White House, this time having to cross two – maybe three – security perimeter check points, instead of the normal one. From what I could tell, every single person in the OVP and the EOP, from secretaries to senior staffers, went back to work that day. We weren’t told to come back. Many people were scared to come back. But we did anyway, because we wanted to be there to do everything we could to help the President and the Vice President help our country in its hour of need.

I tell this story to give others a sense of what it felt like to be in the White House that horrible day, and to give some context of what a dangerous time it was. I’m sure my colleague Brad Blakeman also remembers every single minute of that day, and could tell a similar story. From that day forward, President Bush and his Administration were almost singularly focused on protecting the America from another attack.

The Bush Administration officials directly involved in creating the intelligence and homeland security infrastructure that kept America safe were selfless, dedicated public servants, who did their best to serve the President and their country. They performed their duties with the best of intentions and not for personal gain or self-aggrandizement.

President Barack Obama has now opened the door to prosecuting these former officials for their role in developing the enhanced interrogation techniques. These public servants could be subject to lawsuits, fines, and possible jail time. And to what end? Will this make America safer? Will this convince CIA, DOJ and other officials involved in protecting America to do everything in their power to stop terrorism? Will it this convince the terrorists not to attack America again? Will this really improve America’s image abroad?

• 

  David Biespiel, Poet and writer, Attic Writers Workshop:

  A public inquiry can provide our country catharsis as a house once divided reuniting itself with faith in our shared constitutional values.

Cesar, this is one of the most poignant posts on the Arena that I’ve read, and I appreciate your sharing your story. The pathos it reveals is raw and convincing, and it illustrates your calm, internalized sense of patriotism, which I respect, as you know. I’m responding to your post based on the deliberate generosity of the debates we’ve had on this page in the past.

• But I am not writing to debate any nuance of your personal story, your experience, sacrifice, and values. Not just in D.C, but all across America, we looked skyward, disoriented and perplexed by the pandemonium and turmoil, wrenched from the everyday, and amazed, frightened, shocked, and then, finally, vigilant against what fell out of the sky that September morning eight years ago.

  The next day, too, not just in D.C. but all across America, the good citizens went back to work and life with new vigilance. Even for supporters of rough interrogation methods, the history of post-9/11 interrogation practices has left many Americans anguished, troubled, and disquieted. While some are viscerally supportive of such “harsh tactics,” others are viscerally opposed to the “torture.”

  But the debate is not only semantic. For many Americans, the issue is personal, even intimate. In response to your private story, one of my own: In my home this week, my father–U.S. Navy (retired), who served as an underwater diver in Korea–and I have been discussing the reports in the news about the interrogation procedures.

  My father, a Texan, twice voted for George W. Bush, admires but didn’t vote for President Obama, really doesn’t trust Vice President Biden, and is an enormous admirer of your former boss, Vice President Cheney. You know my politics; the political debates my father and I have had over the decades have been intense, vehement, and impassioned, as you can imagine, but always punctuated with the lighthearted (he says, “Are you sure you’re my son? or I say, “We’re going to have put you out to pasture sooner than planned…”).

  I adore my father; I’m not throwing him under the bus. As often as not, during a one of our political conversations, one of us will notice that it’s 5:30. “Cocktail hour,” says the other, then we repair for drink and move on to talk about dinner. This week, talking together quietly about the difficult interrogation news, I made many of the same points I’ve made on the Arena about the importance of transparency and the rule of law in relation to national safety.

  My father has taken the position that it’s a dangerous world; we have to do what we have to do. “I don’t like it, but these are bad people,” he says. My 16-year-old–a young leftie, I’m sorry to tell you–weighed in by reading Wikipedia’s entry on waterboarding. “Well, that’s not good,” my father said. “But we have to protect ourselves.” When we saw the headline about one “enhanced technique” being used on two suspects 266 times, my father said, “I don’t like that.”

  But, of course, it didn’t change his position. It made him see that his position was related to actual events. It troubled him. “I don’t know what to do,” he said, looking down. Adding, “these are bad people.” He is opposed to torture; he is in favor of protecting the country; he is in favor of rough interrogation practices; and he is opposed to the excessive use of it. As I say, for a patriot like my father, it’s a very complicated and personal issue. I think we’d all benefit–that’s the public’s interest–in learning what is to be learned and doing so now while we’re still directly engaged with the enemy.

  We should define for the future the rules of engagement for interrogating enemy combatants within the framework of the rule of law. We should provide immunity from prosecution all witnesses to any commission examining the post-9/11 interrogation practices (I’ve said more about this in my normal post today). You’ve asked several questions about the efficacy of such a public study. My answers: Will this make America safer? No. We live in dangerous times. Will this convince CIA, DOJ and other officials involved in protecting America to do everything in their power to stop terrorism?

  No. The debate about the usefulness of harsh techniques is ongoing and complex. Will this convince the terrorists not to attack America again? No. Will this really improve America’s image abroad? Yes. We’re a nation of laws and when we have a crisis about those laws, we investigate and re-establish the parameters of the law.

  But may I ask the questions inside out? Will this make America less safe? No. We live in a dangerous world whether we air our domestic battles in public or not.

  Will this convince CIA, DOJ, and other officials involved in protecting America to do nothing in their power to stop terrorism? No. These are professionals who go to work everyday to protect and defend the nation.

  Will this convince terrorists to attack America again? No. Even the death penalty doesn’t prevent aggravated murders.

  Will this impair America’s image abroad? No. It’ll enhance it, be a beacon for other nations, protect our men and women captured in combat, and restore our credibility as a nation that does not torture.

  I won’t soon forget your post today, Cesar. I respect your service. I was just about to send this in when I noticed Brad Blakeman sent in his account. I can’t help but notice the cathartic nature of these two posts, yours and his. They illustrate, for me at least, that an airing of post-9/11 activities will have a similarly cathartic quality for the nation. First an accounting, followed by understanding, then reconciliation. That’s what a public inquiry can provide our country–a house once divided reuniting itself with faith in our shared constitutional values.

• from Politico
• Tortured, Part 2
• Tortured

• Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

• follow david on twitter

Tortured, Round 2

 

Cesar Conda

Republican strategist, former Romney and Cheney advisor

 

The 9/11 National Commission report concluded that both Presidents Clinton and Bush were not well served by the FBI and the CIA

David, there is a big difference between the 3,000 innocent civilians who were going about their daily lives when they were slaughtered on 9/11 and the 4,924 American military men and women who bravely gave their lives to fight for our country.

Your assertion that President George W. Bush’s “pre 9/11 policies made us unsafe” and that he “is responsible for the failure before on 9/10 and prior” doesn’t square with the bipartisan 9/11 National Commission report, which concluded that both Presidents Clinton and Bush were not well served by the FBI and the CIA. According to the Commission: “What we can say with confidence is that none of the measures adopted by the U.S. government from 1998 to 2001 disturbed or even delayed the progress of the al Qaeda plot. Across the government, there were failures of imagination, policy, capabilities, and management.”

On the question of whether America is safer, the 9/11 Commission concluded: “Because of offensive actions against al Qaeda since 9/11, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today. But we are not safe.”

President George W. Bush prevented another 9/11-type of attack, and made America safer today. We are not safe because our enemies with al Qaeda are plotting every single day to kill us. I believe dismantling the Bush anti-terror policies will make us less safe. You, Maria Cardona and others do not. If you get your way, let’s hope and pray that you are right, and I am wrong.

 

 

• David Biespiel

  Poet and writer, Attic Writer’s Workshop

   

  The 9/11 Commissioners did not know what we now know

  Cesar, I don’t think we’re that far apart in fact, but perhaps so in nuance and certainly emphasis.

  Our domestic actions to prevent terrorists and our military excursion in Iraq are part of the same strategic cloth. My point about success/failure characterizations of the Bush administration did not excuse the Clinton administration but I can see how you might see it that way by my not saying so. I’ll be clear: Officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations bear responsibility for the failures that led to 9/11. Richard Clarke, who served in both administrations, has detailed these lapses.

  The 9/11 Commissioners did not know what we now know. The 9/11 Commissioners went to lengths not to report on the relationship between American safety and the war in Iraq–and the terrorist-related consequences that the war has engendered. 

  The 9/11 Commission Report was published in July 2004, even prior to President Bush’s re-election. It wasn’t until December 2005 that the New York Times reported that the Bush administration had conducted numerous illegal–for the sake of friendly debate, allegedly illegal–warrantless searches as part of its counterterrorism initiatives. 

  The 9/11 Commissioners did not know that, in 2007, the United Nations Commission on Torture would admonish the U.S. for our “enhanced interrogation techniques” and the use of secret prisons. 

  The 9/11 Commissioners did not know about the CIA’s destruction of video tape showing prisoners being interrogated by CIA agents–though I suspect they would have excused the destruction of videotape on the grounds that the U.S. does not want other nations to prosecute our agents for potential violations of international law. 

  To the deaths of Americans, both innocent and uniformed military, I would add the 10s of thousands (some estimates have it at 90,000) Iraqis who have died as a result of violent conflict since the start of the war in 2003. Do I ascribe all of those deaths to President Bush, absolutely not. Though the shopkeeper who was killed by a hand-grenade in Faisaliyah, Mosul on March 26, 2009, did not start a preventative war–or even a preventable one. His death does not make Americans safer, at home or abroad.

  Focus on your writing at the Attic Writers’ Workshop

  follow david on twitter