Centerfield

I found it a bit odd that the President received a standing ovation when he announced the names of detainees that had been transferred to Guantanamo for prosecution. Isn't he the same person that has been preventing this type of prosecution? It seems to me that saying "It's about time" would be the more appropriate response to this announcement. The only thing we've gained from the delay of this outcome is the ire of much of the world and a loss of the moral authority that 9/11 most certainly provided.

The fact that these "high profile" names were released...and that one might presume that these individuals will be paraded in the media for all to see...almost immediately after the President and the GOP have just rolled out their campaign strategy for the November midterm election seems all too convenient. Granted, it may well be coincidental but I'm not convinced. Nothing would serve the President better than having Americans see some "tangible" results of our effort to fight the war on terror.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Isn't he the same person that has been preventing this type of prosecution?

No. Where'd you get that idea? Missed the news? The admin was using tribunals at Gitmo before, was restricted from continuing with them without Congressional authorization by the Supreme Court in June, and will (you can bet on this) be pushing Congress to support doing same with the new residents. Those bad boys have been moved there for the precise purpose of trying them by tribunal.

Granted, it may well be coincidental but I'm not convinced.

I sincerely doubt it, and you shouldn't be. They're putting the Congressional Dems on the hot seat, forcing them to either authorize the tribunals per the Supreme Court decision, or be seen as soft on (or even supporting) terrorists. So they've pulled in the worst of the bunch to showcase and use for leverage, including this lovely fellow. If that happening in the fall run-up is a coincidence, I'm an albino rhino.

Good point, Tully. Bush and crew know what they're doing. I personally think that the Congress should authorize this straightaway, and I see no real reason why most Dems should oppose it. Of course, there will probably be a few points of contention, and it might end up turning into another Patriot Act style debate. You know what I mean.

At the end of the day, I hope a good bill gets passed, politics notwithstanding.

One of the "points of contention" being whether the accused will get to see all of the evidence being used against them. Which is likely to get opposed by such noted liberal Democrats as . . . John McCain.

I realize it's primarily a ploy to make Democrats look bad. But somehow it seems like it could have been structured to avoid opposition from Republicans with even a minimal respect for the rule of law, without losing all the points likely to make Democrats oppose it.

I found the speech disturbingly uninterested in accountability. I share the President''s belief in the importance of the War On Terror, and support his goal that the soldiers fighting not subject to legal wrangles, and understand that bad guys have to be put somewhere. But I also feel it's important in this war, as all wars, for the government and the President in particular to be accountable to the people for maladministration and human rights violations. The President shows no interest in accountability in this speech. You'd think he was supporting the Gitmo prison for Senator from this speech.

I think he should stop playing so many games with the truth on Gitmo. Would that stop criticism? Of course not, but good leadership generally brings increased public support, and it would allow open consideration of Gitmo and its problems rather than the current situation where it's kind of a national sore for extremists to play in, and things never get better. What Would Churchill Have Done?

Am I being a hopeless lefty-lib who's really just too wimpy for war? Probably. Or do I just think it's important enough that it deserves good administration in all its aspects?

> The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it.

This is all a dance around the fact that he allows rendition to occur, even if he hasn't specifically authorized it.

> Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain

Would McCain agree with that characterization?

> But one of the reasons we have not been able to close Guantanamo is that many countries have refused to take back their nationals held at the facility.

Isn't another reason that the military tribunals have decided some prisoners should stay in detention indefinitely? If Bush thinks he's shot straight at Gitmo, why is he giving excuses why it's still open?

I''m not unsympathetic to the idea that some yielding of rights and formalities in wartime. But I do feel that accountability is appropriate for such actions. I notice that we aren't seeing any numbers on how harsh treatment works out versus gentle treatment, especially in terms of information generated. At least one Army interrogator has blogged that he gets better information with gentle treatment.

Am I being a hopeless lefty-lib...?

Yep. You're complaining that Bush didn't come out and give a groveling mea culpa speech. That may be what you want, but that's not the kind of speech Presidents give--unless they've been caught boinking interns and lying about it.

What Would Churchill Do? We already know the answer. In WW2 Churchill originally advocated summary execution of Nazi leaders and general officers, but was dissuaded by FDR and acquiesced to trial by military tribunal. Which is exactly what happened at Nuremberg.

Stalin proposed executing ALL German staff officers. That would have been between 50 and 100 thousand Germans. Thus making Churchill's original idea seem downright gentle.