Roger Cohen on Obama, Guantanamo, and the Law

My favorite part of the OpEd:

"What they got on release was a single piece of paper from the American government. A U.S. official met one of the dozens of Afghans now released from Guantánamo and was so appalled by this document that he forwarded me a copy.

Dated Oct. 7, 2006, it reads as follows:

“An Administrative Review Board has reviewed the information about you that was talked about at the meeting on 02 December 2005 and the deciding official in the United States has made a decision about what will happen to you. You will be sent to the country of Afghanistan. Your departure will occur as soon as possible.”

That’s it, the one and only record on paper of protracted U.S. incarceration: three sentences for four years of a young Afghan’s life, written in language Orwell would have recognized.

We have “the deciding official,” not an officer, general or judge. We have “the information about you,” not allegations, or accusations, let alone charges. We have “a decision about what will happen to you,” not a judgment, ruling or verdict. This is the lexicon of totalitarianism. It is acutely embarrassing to the United States."

Clicky to read the whole thing.

Comments

[JK]

Appalling indeed - and Cohen hit the nail on the head - it is acutely embarrassing to the United States.

[JK]

Appalling indeed - and Cohen hit the nail on the head - it is acutely embarrassing to the United States.

[Stephen]

I think the "rule of law" is not the real victim of our perceived abuses in Gitmo. Guilty of the same transgression imputed to the current administration: fuzzying language to gain moral support or neutrality. Why not just say "I think Obama will be better, because I think he will be less oppressive" and stop beating around THE BUSH.

Furthermore, I don't know if lawyers have actually demonstrated a marked superiority in presidential leadership.

[Russ Brown]

"Furthermore, I don't know if lawyers have actually demonstrated a marked superiority in presidential leadership."

Hey, I object to that! Now, lessee, there's Clinton, Nixon, Van Buren, Hayes ... okay, "uncle".

Seriously, though, it is hard to generalize about whether lawyers have made better US presidents than non-lawyers. Given that over half of the US presidents have been lawyers, they're statistically bound to include some of the best and some of the worst. So, along with the mug's gallery listed above, there is also a pretty impressive crowd, like FDR, Lincoln, Adams (both of 'em), Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Wilson.

[Stephen]

To expand, I think the rule of law is a celebrated aspect of Anglo-American political life, and it's compromising is indicative of a tendency to corruption. Having a leader, trained in constitutional law and its motivations, perhaps would be preferable to the general peace. However, it's a mistake to look at a breach in the rule of law and from there deduce corruption or incompetence. THe rule of law is a theory and creedence derived from a set of facts and circumstances. It would be dogmatic to then assume its definitive and invulnerable authority. Rather, one looks at the facts (the present abuses) and then "induces" the consequences on political life. Thus there is sleight of hand, deriving criticism of an administration from a rather nebulous concept. This is not anti-Orwellian as Cohen would have us believe, even if the end result produces moral consensus.

So rather than lawyers, I would have a person that has carefully considered their lineage of political thinkers like Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and Tocqueville. Hopefully Obama has these qualities, but no where near to the level of expertise as Sarah Palin. Sorry America, you missed out.