May 12, 2009

Keeping Guantanamo Open

A controversial topic...but those are always more fun to talk about.

Closing Guantanamo is a symbolic move, but it's not the right move. Of course, saying that out loud doesn’t yield popular votes or help make new friends; you’re more likely to come across as an insensitive swine. *I can feel the e-tomatoes flying already* In any case, popular sentiment doesn’t change reality.


First: when you consider the purpose for it, the environment, the people in it, and the security, etc... Guantanamo is clearly a unique facility. Fact is...even closed, a facility of this kind will have to exist somewhere. The entire facility is guarded by military personnel, guards are armed to the hilt, and doctors have to wear heavy armor when treating prisoners to protect themselves against violent attacks like stabbings. All of these elements ((plus interrogation and national security) go beyond what we would consider standard prison environment. Given the nature of the detainees and the primary function of the facility, the location seems to me to be an ideal one.

“An effective counterterrorism policy would segregate terrorists from society, gain intelligence about their activities and organization by lawful means, hold them criminally responsible for their crimes, and discourage the spread of their numbers and ideology.”
As far as I'm concerned, successfully achieving the first three goals is quite enough for me to validate keeping Guantanamo open. Few will deny that there have been abuses in the interrogation process - perhaps even gross atrocities. That said, the existence of these abuses does not and should not discredit the benefits of the facility or the necessity for keeping it open. If the detention facilities at Guantanamo are closed, the United States will still have legal and moral obligations to safeguard the prisoners, collect intelligence, and try war criminals. In fact, there are many who agree that meeting those obligations in accordance with national security concerns will require procedures and facilities that look an awful lot like Guantanamo.

Second: looking at our own domestic prisons I'm not ignorant enough to believe that similar abuses aren’t occurring. I know abuses happen; I watch 20/20 and Dateline! ;-) Prisoners may not be chained for days without food or use of bathroom facilities (that's the nicest way to put that), but are prisoners who are beaten by guards, gang-raped and demoralized considered to be receiving better treatment? How do we distinguish? On one hand we have Guantanamo and public outcry over the treatment of terrorists who live and die to kill Americans (meaning they could give a squats ass about you) and on the other hand the public doesn't say boo about the treatment of American prisoners within our own domestic detention facilities. I find the obvious contradiction extremely disturbing and I believe this one consideration alone renders the whole argument of prisoner treatment at Guantanamo moot.

In any case, before we even consider closing Guantanamo, it needs to be stated very clearly how the government intends to collect intelligence, interrogate detainees and safeguard prisoners more effectively and humanely than the current detention operations at Guantanamo. Following that, the government needs to address how they intend to monitor all of those operations to ensure the proper processes are being followed (or being followed any differently than the current operations at Guantanamo). I've heard nothing; I've read nothing that addresses these important questions. Arguing that the United States should close the facilities merely to placate criticisms of its detention policies is not enough (unless of course you're Obama or part of his idiot administration).

*I find this whole Guantanamo business eerily similar to the administration's handling of Healthcare - let's not identify the issues and try to fix the problem, let's appease public opinion by making stupid decisions to take focus away from the issue, and hope the issue resolves itself*

moving on...

If we close Guantanamo…where do the prisoners go?
A friend posted a video on Facebook recently and the message of the youtube video was basically: Terrorist..Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood. Extreme? Probably not by much. One possibility under consideration is to send detainees to local prisons; another option is to send them to Camp Pendleton. I suggest another alternative...if GITMO does close, cut a hole in the fence and let them loose in Cuba. Castro was nice enough to empty his prisons and send them to us in the 70's, let's return the favor! And by the by, sending suspected terrorists to a prison facility filled with militarly prisoners - isn't on par with creating a more humane environment; in fact I would argue that it's more akin to putting sheep in the lion's den. Putting suspected terrorists at the mercy of American prisoners and guards - military or otherwise - also seems to render the whole argument of prisoner treatment at Guantanamo moot. On second thought, this option does have some appeal...

Next idiot move.....





May 5, 2009

A Sinking GOP

Just a few years ago, I was telling college students that the problem with the Democratic party is that…there is no true party. Eight years ago, the Democratic party brand was in shambles. It had no solid ideology to spout, no real platform, dissent ran amuck throughout the party, and there was no strength in leadership.

Suddenly, today’s Republican Party has landed itself where the democrats were 8 years ago: lacking a coherent vision that resonates with ordinary voters and weighed down by ideological bankruptcy. States are turning blue, pulpit religion seems to be finding its way into a lot of party conversations, the party as a whole feels demoralized and beaten, and strong party leaders are non-existent. I’m not sure I could even name a solid top 5. And if I could, no folks, Sarah Palin would not be on that list.

Briefly on Sarah Palin: let’s face it; Palin energized the Party base – no joke. But here’s the reality: we were so desperate to reinvigorate a lifeless party, to bring youth to our ideas and our image, that we blinded ourselves to what can be classically characterized as a woman who is just plain air-headed. We scorn Obama for his down–right idiot behavior in recent months (as well we should), but can we honestly say Palin would have given a better representation – as VP or possibly as President. EH. No. And yet we wanted that November win so badly (and just as badly we wanted the Democrats to fall with a thunderous THUMP), that we ignored the obvious to get there.

Many of us know what it means to live, breathe and “be” Republican, but there seem to be a lot more who just don’t get it. What has happened to our party since the Reagan days? Republican politicians tout Reagan's name to invigorate skeptical voters *and we within the party love hearing his name*, but Reagan was last President in 1989. What does that say about our party when the last great conservative leader we quote was leading twenty years ago??? Are we even still the same party that Reagan loved so much? Certainly not; we just use his name.

George W. Bush's popularity pretty much tanked our overall image, but there’s no denying the fact that there’s a lot more going on in the GOP that is responsible for its decline. Anyone who says otherwise would probably vote Palin for President in 2012. *you know who you are*

What we need to do
We need to rebuild the Republican brand. We need to rebuild from the local level and let the revolution spread upward and outward. I’ve seen it start here in the Springs – a lot of togetherness and discussion. Let’s spread the passion and renew the party.

The party has to do a better job of communicating, in plain English, what our policies mean to the people here at home. The awesomeness of our ideals hasn’t changed, but younger generations don’t seem to get us. We need to do a better job of saying: This is what we believe, this is why we believe it, and this is what it means to you; for reasons a, b, and c…this is how our “vision” impacts you. Simply saying what you believe and pointing at the other guy isn’t enough – not today. The future of the party isn’t the older generation who remember what the party used to be, but the young folks coming out of college who will make it what it needs to become. And from young to old, left to right, people need to understand the connection between policy and personal impact.

And finally,

The party has to be above bitterness and anger. It seems that so many conservatives these days are more interested in spewing pure hatred for leftist ideologies that they refuse to engage in real intellectual conversations on the issues. And I’m not saying the left doesn’t do this either but who cares what they’re doing. Whatever it is…they’re doing it better than we are. And if there’s something to really be angry about, let’s start there.