Democrites: Senate Democrats Cave to Dick Cheney on Guantanamo's Closing

Congressional Democrats and President Obama ran on the platform of significantly changing the direction of this country, from domestic policy to national security. But lately, Democrats have been taking a number of actions on national security that are alarming at best and hypocritical at worst. This post is part of Sam Sedaei's new blog series "Democrites," coming from the perspective of a member of loyal opposition, to call Democrats out on their questionable actions when they occur.

It is at this point the general consensus among historians and international affairs expert that a number of policies that President Bush put in place in the name of defending national security ended up hurting America and its interests abroad. These included the war in Iraq, torture of detainees in Abu Gharib prison, and the holding and torture of suspects at Guantanamo Bay detention center indefinitely, in horrid conditions, without a charge and without legal representation. President Obama understood the value that such actions had for Al Qaeda and other extremists' propaganda efforts. While campaigning, he wisely promised to close Guantanamo and bring the 240 detainees into the American legal system for appropriate legal procedures, and he kept that promise when two days after the inauguration, he issued an executive order to close Guantanamo within the year (with the Senate Democrats standing in support behind him).

But on Monday, those Senate Democrats sheepishly joined with Republicans to block President Obama's $80 million request for the closing of Guantanamo.

The event seemed to be the predictable result of a misguided conventional wisdom that had been forming on Capitol Hill for weeks, which is we cannot bring these detainees into the United States because "they are the worst of the worst." Well, there are major flaws in that argument. For one, we cannot operate on the assumption that everyone at Guantanamo is a criminal because in this country, there is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. And as long as there is the presumption of innocence, there is no justification for treating the detainees as if they have already been charged, indicted and convicted.

The second flaw is rooted in a statement Senator Harry Reid made when trying to justify Senate Democrats' 180. He said on Monday, "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States." But that is not an unavoidable consequence of bringing the detainees within the American legal system.

Once the detainees go through the legal process, there can be two outcomes: they are either charged and convicted -- in which case they will be off the streets and in the American prison system -- or they are released. Democrats and Republicans stood on the Senate floors on Monday, and -- with the c-span cameras rolling for their constituents -- showed strong opposition to "bringing the terrorists in the United States." Of course, if terrorists are brought into the legal system, they would be technically (i.e. geographically) "in the United States," and that sounds bad. But are we seriously worried about these terrorists escaping the most highly secured "supermax" prisons in the Untied States that currently house the worst criminals, drug gang leaders, murderers, and by the way, terrorists this country has seen? Our children's reading and math skills may not be in the top 10 in the world, but the U.S. incarcerates more people than any other country on earth. This is something we know how to do quite well! How are these terrorists any worse or more capable of escaping the American supermax prisons than those other murderers already in them?

And what if they are found not guilty -- or found guilty and served their terms -- and are released? Do they have to walk around freely in the United States? Not necessarily! As the debate on Guantanamo took place, the United States quietly released a terrorist named Khalid Al-Jawary in late February after serving 16 years for plotting to attack New York City in 1973, placing 3 bombs in cars (which failed to detonate). Upon his release, he was handed over to immigration, which took him under custody for being in this country illegally. Federal agents immediately got on an airplane and took him to Sudan where he was released. Al Jawary's case demonstrates a perfect example for the kind of procedure that can take place when terrorists are tried according to U.S. laws, convicted and released.

The last main concern of those Senate Democrats banding together to derail President Obama's plan has to do with the question of what would happen if the terrorists are released in a foreign country (whether immediately due to a lack of evidence for a charge or after being convicted and serving their sentences)? Would they go back to their old ways of plotting against American interests or start doing so if they never had before?

First, as for the ones who were previously involved in fight against the Americans, the answer to this question is irrelevant because we never ask this when releasing other criminals and murders after they serve their sentences. The American legal system is responsible for prosecuting crimes that have already been committed, not making predictions about criminal behavior and prejudge individuals for crimes they're likely to commit.

And as for the ones who were falsely detained, it is likely that they have amassed enough resentment toward the United States to join the anti-American forces. But the main reason for doing so would most likely be financially driven, and that has a solution, too. If the United States truly detained individuals indefinitely without evidence, it has the moral responsibility to offer the detainees reparations for their pain and suffering.

But besides our moral responsibility, we would also have a smart national security rationale to not only offer reparations to those detainees, but offer them paying jobs in their home countries. By doing so, we would effectively take away the main reason most terrorists become terrorists: a paycheck. It may sound controversial to put "terrorists" on American payroll, but keep in mind that such a plan would only be offered to those who were falsely detained, which means they are not terrorists.

These are just some of the options that together can make up a comprehensive plan to close Guantanamo. But by refusing to fund President Obama's plan, Senate Democrats showed that they are once again falling back into the old losing trend of caving to Republicans and Dick Cheney on national security.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter

Comments

[LinkSync]

Sam, BO is the leading problem when it comes to "caving".

He just said he wants to in some fashion make it legal to do "Preemptive Prolonged Detention".
WTF is that except Bush/Cheney enemy combatant policy revisited and STRENGTHENED?

All you Dems are so enamored with your projections of your own hopes on BO you can not see the truth of your having been foold AGAIN.

No Health Care reform that might harm the for profit providers and will enforce and "even playing field" for them, because to paraphrase what BO said, they got there first so we can't do single payer.
BAIL OUTS for RICH BANKERS but nothing for hurting homeowners. Really nothing as I know.
No varifiable termination of illegal wiretapping.
No getting out of Iraq.
Escalation of our war in Pakistan.
The ongoing kidnapping and detention without Habeas Corpus rights of individuals into Afgahn military prisons.

The tiny tweaks he has done are really just red herrings to keep you all amazed and agoggle while in fact the nothing has actually changed except further entrenching of the same old machinery that has screwed us all over and over and over.

Ameircans remain infinitly NAIVE and so stroke themselves even as their neighbor goes through forclosure when a simple re-finance would prevent that.
Really.
But the banks won;t do it unless people "qualify" under existing conditions even tho the borrowers would qualify under the new conditions.

It all stinks like the puke from murdered children.

[wndrwrthg]

Under no circumstances should anyone vote for a democrat again. Do not cry that this only plays into the repubs hands, because it doesn't matter, the dems are owned by the republicans, lock, stock and barrel.

[Sam Sedaei - Huffpost Blogger]

I understand your frustration. But I think your recommendation is a bit too extreme.

[wndrwrthg]

What would you have us do? They expect us to vote for them because they are not the republicans. They consider us to be no more than automatons, doing what they want, no matter how they treat us. It is the democratic voters who must grow spines, to stand up to these charlatans who grow fat at the trough of lobbiest money and piss on their constituents.

[merger]

i am so angry with these Senators that I am almost speechless. They nodded their heads in agreement and applauded loudly when Obama on the campaign trail was saying he would close. This group has got to go. They are turning their backs on their President and the leader of their party not to mention their promises to their country. My biggest question to them is: when you were nodding yes and applauding Obama's promise to close Gitmo, just where in the he!! did you think these detainees would go? They are US detainees and prisoners. Although I appreciate England and France agreeing to each take a detainee, if I were leading France or England, I would have said you keep them, you wanted them, you got him, you house them, and you figure it out. But then again, this group is not capable of figuring anything out.

[zendem1]

Cowards.

[merger]

IN ALL CAPS!!!!!!!

[Chernynkaya]

The "problem" with the American legal system is that it requires a high threshold of evidence before indictment and trial. One can't just accuse someone without some demonstrable facts.

Most of the Gitmo detainees were swept up after 9-11 and maybe even can be assumed to be involved in terrorist activity. But that doesn't meet our judicial system's legal requirements. So what to do?

Allow the courts to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence, even though we can be reasonably sure they are dangerous? Keep them locked up without a trial? Or try to work it through via some sort of military tribunal? Remember, Obama didn't round up these guys. What is he supposed to do with them?

[Helanren]

What you call a "problem" is what I would call the strength of the system, i.e. that people are innocent until proven guilty. To avoid the risk of people being convicted at the whim of whoever is in power at the moment, or simply to appease public outcry, the law indeed requires evidence before sentencing. No more summary 'justice', on the spot lynchings etc. A civilized society rather risks some bad guys walking away than have innocents punished for something they didn't do.

The same principle should be applied to all, even those of whom you say "we can be reasonably sure to be dangerous"; after all how sure can we be without evidence? And on a more practical level, the ones not sent to prison are more likely to be extradited to where they came from, than to end up walking on the streets of Anytown, USA and planning terrorist attacks.

[houstonbayow]

We can not continue to live in the past. We must learn to move on and stop trying to stop the President from doing his job. Again I will vote for him 100 times. The Republican's needs to grow up and accept their lost.

[ECBA88]

Thanks for the post, but based on it, I can't at all divine your opinion on this article. Are you saying the congressional Dems should support Obama? Are you saying people should be more loyal to the Democratic party? This comment could be posted on any story that remotely involves the President...

[houstonbayow]

Some times we as a nation need leaders with fresh mind and not cowards. When you put fears in a child, that child will grow up to be a coward. When you put hope and love in a child. The child will grow up to love and have hope. Sometimes we create fears within ourselves and that fears becomes real. What are you afraid of? Why create fears when there is nothing to be afraid of. Are we a nation of fear mongers?

[lapinbrim]

Complete cowards. Obama has his hands full, clowns to the left and jokers to the right. The Dems are pathetic.

[TheTXI]

Thank you for writing something that is sensible and absent of the hysterics that are so prevalent now a days. I can't for the life of me understand how so many people can live in such a state of fear. I don't see how we should be seeing Abdul from Afghanistan as some sort of criminal terrorist mastermind who is incapable of being contained in any prison not located within the jurisdiction of the American legal system. Do these people have terrorist super powers that we haven't been told about?

We have people in our current prison system who have raped and killed dozens of people during their serial killing sprees, I highly doubt Abdul from Afghanistan and Salim from Saudi Arabia are going to pose an even more grave threat upon society by being locked up beside our own homegrown terrorists and murderers.

[Cedman]

I agree fully. Harry Reid is no leader, he is a complete wimp. Remember when he went toe to toe with Blago over his selection of Burris to fill Obama's seat? Reid made all kinds of statements saying he would not seat someone Blago selected then, his bluff was called and he folded like a cheap suit. Now the republicans are fear mongering again with arguments a 3rd grader could rebuff but Harry and the Dems are too busy assuming the fetal position.

[ECBA88]

Harry Reid needs to go.