How Can Closing Guantánamo Be Controversial?

As the deadline for this month’s column for Harlots’ Sauce Radio was fast approaching, I looked through my pantry for any number of prospective Political Hash posts, but found my cupboards bare, because these past few weeks the political scene has been uncharacteristically lacking in subjects about which I’ve felt inclined to write.

The impetus for my political writings has always been to either spark awareness about events that are displeasing me, or to come to terms with events and situations I don’t understand fully. I’ve no loyalty to any particular individual beyond the good they do, so I wasn’t as worked up by the inauguration of Barack Obama as many other people. I’m more interested in the dirty deeds of politics than its pomp and circumstance, and as they say in show business, “you’re only as good your last show.” This sums up my viewpoint on politicians in general. So, with Bush acting unusually statesman-like in his final weeks, and most of the lawmakers on a break, I was getting antsy that I might not have a topic for this month’s issue.

But, yesterday I found the proper rage to begin this article, so for that, I’m thankful.

Obama has signed three executive orders regarding treatment of U.S. detainees. The first is to close Guantánamo Bay within the year to shut down CIA detention centers around the world, the second is for U.S. Army interrogators to adhere to the Army Field Manual which prohibits torture (mostly because it’s ineffective), and the third is to create a task force headed by Gates to bring proper legal justice to the “current and future detainees”, according to United States law.

This political move by the new administration establishes the precedent that President Obama really does intend to adhere to his campaign promise of change, and wishes to restore a degree of ethics to American Foreign Policy, which, as a policy rooted in combating tyranny (ideally) has been quite hypocritical, to say the least, these past few years. This was an command I doubted Obama would actually issue, but instead, he made it a priority in his first week on the job. For that, I’ve developed a greater respect for him. Politically he can coast on this for a while, as his advocates will feel vindicated and skeptics will be appeased for a time. In the end, it was smart politics to gain an initial popularity boost before tackling some of the more mundane presidential duties.

However, it outrages me that there are actually Americans who don’t like that President Obama has done this.

I’ve heard that it’s bad policy “to issue an order without a plan”, I’ve heard “we treat them better then they treat us”, I’ve heard “they’ll just recruit American prisoners to their cause in regular prisons,” and my favourite excuse, “What if they’re found innocent?”

Critics of these orders say that they will compromise U.S. national security, that they accomplishes nothing, and that they are merely political ploys. With the third statement I agree, this is a political move, pure and simple, but a necessary one.

To illustrate my beliefs regarding the torture issue and Guantánamo Bay, I shall return to something I learned around this time last year about Ron Paul. Paul has been in politics for a good number of years, and he’s known to have a great deal of integrity, but, back in the 1970’s, he was publishing newsletters under his name with some clearly racist commentary in them. When the newsletters circulated, it was a PR disaster for Paul; he was dubbed a racist and was forced to drop his campaign for president. He didn’t try to defend or excuse the papers, likely because he wanted to maintain his integrity, but he could have salvaged his campaign and moved on further if he’d responded with, “I fired that editor and tried to have those words removed, but they were published without my permission.”

Even if there were several months of articles, he needed a spin of outrage and apology, distance himself from the writing, and declare in no uncertain terms that he did not share those opinions. To the dismay of Libertarians everywhere, he did not do this, and so failed in his bid for president.

The Bush Administration’s handling of this torture issue mirrors that Ron Paul scandal. When issues of torture and prisoner mistreatment came up, they should have denied them. They should have publicly and officially chastised those who were involved, and proclaimed from the rooftops that they were wrong. But instead, inconceivably, they, too, dug themselves in, by actually trying to make these despicable and immoral acts legal. Instead of “deny, deny, deny,” which any common criminal knows how to do, the Bush Administration got in bed with this disgusting issue, and started their own bukkake porn series.

Allegations of torture are likely not as widespread as the enemies of the Bush Administration, (and enemies of America) would claim, but frankly, it doesn’t matter, it’s scandal and scandal must be eliminated in order to restore credibility. Even if the credibility is only superficial, it rarely matters. Guantánamo has become a symbol of American decadence and Republican corruption which should have been eliminated at least two years ago; not by a new Democrat president, but by the Republican Party itself. Instead, the Republicans defended torture, claiming it was “necessary,” despite mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness, and passed laws condoning its existence, which further damaged the United States Constitution, and the Republican Party reputation.

Further, this has clearly done more harm to U.S. national security than good. It would be pure incompetence at any ‘Suicide Bomber Training Camp’ to fail to mention to inductees the “American torture prisons” that would await them, instead of their virgins, should they fail in their sacred mission. Imagine instead, the scenario where the new U.S. president unleashes to the press corps the “turnaround” of American military detention centers, centers which have been renovated into the most courteous and certified outfits in the world. If every enemy combatant knew without a doubt that if captured, they would be treated respectfully, and would have a real chance of being returned to their families if they cooperated, how would that change the Islamic militant mentality? It’s basic psychology. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone, anyone? Think about it.

So all you Republicans who might be criticizing this ‘dangerously benevolent’ move by the new administration, in my opinion, the only thing you should be criticizing is each other, and the fact that your party didn’t think of it first.

________________________________________________________