.
February 16, 20098
On Friday February 6, President Obama met with three
dozen people, including myself, whose loved ones were
murdered in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the USS Cole and the embassy bombings.
The subject: Obama`s
executive order closing the prison at
Guantanamo Bay (in a year`s time and after an
interagency committee has decided what to do) and
suspending the prosecutions of the terrorists imprisoned
there.[Obama
reassures terror victims` kin, By Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, February 7, 2009]
I remain convinced that closure of
Guantanamo
is unwise. But I must give Mr. Obama credit for showing
an interest in the views of the families. This is in
sharp contrast to his predecessor.
George W. Bush was happy to use families of
terrorist victims in public settings, but in private,
every action of his and those under him showed contempt
for and anger with any
family
member who was not willing to be his toady.
Whether Mr. Obama`s meeting with us was an expression of
genuine concern, or is merely the product of political
antennae that are better than Bush`s, we will only learn
with time.
Obama started the meeting by speaking without notes for
over thirty minutes. For at least another hour, he
answered questions. He promised
"swift and sure justice," noting that, as of the time he signed his
order to close
Guantanamo
were just being arraigned. That was
hardly a swift prosecution. (This was said just one
day after his order suspending military tribunals
halted
the nearly-completed trial of one of the Cole
bombers.)
Obama said he had ordered his staff to
"reexamine"
the entire process for trying the prisoners. He said the
decision to close
indicative of an ultimate decision on whether to try the
defendants in military commissions or civilian courts.
But Obama argued that
Guantanamo
has become a symbol that has made the
around the world. The world has now confused
Guantanamo
with Abu Graib. He decided to close the prison because
he "wants to strip away the excuses that have been made for [the
prisoners.]"
Of course, the President`s contention that
Guantanamo
has become for many in the
United States
abroad a symbol of evil is correct as far as it goes.
There are those who believe that prisoners in
and they sympathize with the prisoners based on that
false belief. Many people have sent them gifts and
letters of support. Over
five hundred lawyers have offered their services
pro bono.
But the President ignored some relevant facts. The Far
Left has engaged in a
well-financed propaganda campaign, a
web of lies alleging ill treatment at Guantanamo,
since the prison was opened. This was part of the Left`s
effort to undermine President Bush, regardless of the
merit of any particular policy. It has been highly
successful.
Of course, Mr. Obama would not want to speak of this,
since the Left constituted the core of his support in
the campaign for the Democratic nomination.
Whatever the reason, Obama is correct that
Guantanamo
is damaging
America
Yet we must wait and see if closure puts an end to the
Far Left making
"excuses" for terrorists. It may not, for as the
plagiarizing ex-professor,
Ward Churchill has shown, the
Far
Left believes the victims of 9/11, being
"little
Eichmanns," deserved what they got.
Mr. Obama also addressed the problem of what information
the government will turn over to terrorist defendants.
In earlier trials, judges have ordered that defendants`
attorneys be given access to
classified information in order to mount a
“proper defense”.
This information was then promptly transmitted by the
attorneys to terrorists still at large, thus
compromising
Mr. Obama said Bush`s decision to keep the prisoners
out
of the United States was an attempt to solve this
problem, under the theory that by keeping them offshore,
they were not entitled to all of the rights that the
Constitution guarantees to
criminal defendants in
U.S.
courts. But, he said,
certain Supreme Court decisions had granted these
rights to offshore prisoners, and this had undermined
the legal basis for maintaining
However Mr. Obama immediately revealed his own
uncertainty on the matter by saying that it is
"unlikely [emphasis added]
that they will get all the Constitutional protections of
a
Clearly, he lacks confidence that once on
aiding the killers won`t succeed in getting them into
our
criminal justice system, with all the rights,
including rights of
discovery, which an
ordinary criminal would have.
Should that happen, what the president wants won`t
matter: if a judge decides they`re entitled to
classified information to make an effective defense,
Administration refusal to provide it will result in
dismissal of charges.
And this is a real possibility. When asked about the
issue of classified information, the President
responded: "We`re
not going to give a whole bunch of
classified information to them."
If a judge then dismisses the charges, will Mr. Obama
refuse to release them?
Interestingly, the President at one point uttered the
phrase "Far Left". But he seemed to instantly recognize this as a faux pas
and attempted to gloss over these words, saying instead
that the "Far
Right has over simplified the issue." Then, as if
trying to restore balance, he said that
"both the Left
and the Far Right" are guilty of this.
That little misstep of referring to the
"Far Left"
points to the President`s dilemma. Breaking his promise
to core supporters on an issue in which they have
invested so much would have carried terrible political
risk. This is a group that has a history of viciously
attacking those whom they perceive as insufficiently
loyal to the party line, particularly apostates. So it`s
no surprise that Mr. Obama followed through on this
commitment to shut the place down. He may think it wiser
to risk
setting the terrorists free than face the wrath of
betrayed ACLU members.
(In support of this view we must
remember that his Attorney General, Eric Holder, was
responsible for the
midnight pardons granted by Bill Clinton that set
free the
Puerto Rican terrorists who had attempted to kill
President Truman.)
But if anything was apparent about Mr. Obama it is that
he is highly intelligent man. He knows that, after
numerous screenings, what remains in
in finance, bomb building, and other specialists.
Already, several dozen of those released
from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorism. One
of these appears to be the chief of Al Qaeda in
Yemen
Obama cannot ignore the fact that if his actions result
in release of these killers, the blood of their future
victims will be seen on his hands.
Mr. Obama seems to have given himself an escape clause.
His executive order allows a year in which his
administration can decide how to proceed. It is a year
in which he can railroad through the legislative process
many demands of his allies on the Left—ACORN,
NEA,
AFSCME,
ACLU, the
National Lawyers Guild,
LaRaza and the rest.
In that year Obama can achieve his goals of ending the
secret ballot in union elections, perverting the
Census, imposing
socialized medicine, drastically increasing funding
for the Left, etc.
Having fulfilled these political promises, the President
might decide it would be safe to renege on his
Guantanamo
pledge and keep the place open after implementing vague
"reforms."
As it required a Richard Nixon, the longtime
anti-Communist, to be the man to
open relations with China, it requires a Barack
Obama to keep Al Qaeda terrorists in
Cuba
and away from US courts.
Thus it may be that President Obama was truthful with
the families. If it will not be swift, at least there
may be justice.
But muting the left`s opposition will require surrender
to the demands of a host of other radical leftwing
groups.
Whichever course Obama chooses, the people of the
Peter Gadiel (email
him) is president of
9/11 Families
for a Secure America.
His son, 9/11 World Trade Center victim James
Gadiel (North Tower, 103rd floor),
was 23 at the time of his murder.
