This is going to put some right off their Sunday brunch.
Understanding that this is an analysis, not an opinion being offered in agreement, but simply a reality check surrounding the latest political decision delivered by Pres. Obama.
So, straight off the top let me say that Pres. Obama’s decision to keep the military commissions, while expanding the parameters of rights and procedures, in no way surprises me. Remember, Senator Obama actually voted for military commissions in 2006, which he mentioned in his statement yesterday.
Many others were surprised:
Some liberals and human rights groups said they were stunned by the announcement on Friday, with several calling it a betrayal.
Frankly, I find it stunning people are seemingly shocked that Obama continues to act in keeping with who he is. Once again I go back to the interview he had with George Stephanopoulos, which I do every time one of these controversies flares, to remind people that regardless of his lofty rhetoric, it’s more important to keep your eye on the foundation of the politician.
“… I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama (on ABC’s “This Week”)
This is likely what led Pres. Obama to reverse himself on the detainee photos as well.
Obama’s decision on military commissions, while a disappointment to many, inspiring some to call him “Bush lite,” really is a step in the right direction, regardless of the hyperbolic reviews being delivered. I’ll let the lawyers delineate the specifics of the grievances many have with the Administration’s decision.
No one in the Administration has yet explained why courts martial won’t work, because according to experts that’s the way to go, something of which I’m convinced. Neal Katyal argued the Hamdan case all the way up to the Supremes, explains why:
When asked why they do not use courts martial (or at least borrow their rules), the administration has offered two arguments. First, it has asserted blindly that courts martial are not available to people who lack prisoner-of-war status. That is flatly not the case, as the 1951 law explicitly states. Second, it has claimed that only military commissions have procedures capable of handling classified information. Yet it is patently absurd to think that our courts-martial system could not handle classified information. It already does so, day in and day out. We have had courts martial in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Courts martial are already tooled up to handle evidence seized on a battlefield.
In stating that the rules governing courts martial do not apply to commissions, the administration has placed itself in stark contrast to other administrations. Even in the midst of the Vietnam war, with thousands of dead, President Nixon’s Defense Department examined the commissions option and concluded that “the specific protections of the Bill of Rights, unless made inapplicable to military trials by the Constitution itself, have been held applicable to courts-martial. Both logic and precedent indicate that a lesser standard for military commissions would not be constitutionally permissible.”
The U.S. federal criminal justice system is another avenue, which some lawyers have also argued in favor, though the financial burden on communities like Alexandria would be real, something that is making the local papers in Virginia.
It makes one wonder if all this isn’t what is also represented in Obama’s tied in knots procrastination on closing Gitmo.
But no one should be surprised. That is if they were paying attention to Mr. Obama over his political career. He does not like confrontation or fights to the political death. He eschews representing one political philosophy or dogma, but works through compromises and consensus, which rarely delivers anything bold. It is his forceful rhetorical flourishes and incredible performance gifts that inspire following and loyalty, while his governing principles are moored in the modest. The former bringing the masses on board, with the latter always keeping him centered. While not excusing Mr. Obama at all for not delivering on campaign promises, we should not believe that what he promised isn’t his highest goal, though the practicality of delivering those highest ideals falls short because often times these are the things that require fighting. That’s just not Obama’s style. More importantly, it is not who he is as a politician.
Pres. Obama is revealing a cautious presidential nature that is infuriating many who believed he was someone he is not. The dreams of a candidate often solidify in the reality of incremental shifts instead of large moves, especially when national security, war and peace, justice and punishment are his to render. Promises are easy. Living with big mistakes of history are not.
Unfortunately, caution where courage is required rarely puts us on the road least traveled.
Have we seen this play before?
