The Debate Over Gitmo

There has been broad coverage regarding the legality of what the Bush administration did directly after 9/11 to protect the country. What I find interesting is how facts don’t seem to play a big role in the discussion by the pundits and politicians. It is more about Democrats vs. Republicans than resolving questions of national security and the appropriate response to imminent terrorist threats.

Why are people so concerned about the treatment of the Gitmo detainees and their due process when we have Obama-approved Predator drones flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan firing Hellcat missiles into suspected terrorist hideouts (operative word is “suspected”)? I don’t think there was a lot of due process for those on the receiving end, but this is an inconvenient fact that makes the treatment of Gitmo detainees look tame – unless you believe that death is preferable to prison. Are these “suspects” that much different than the people we captured and brought to Cuba? We know collateral damage occurs (translated – innocent bystanders killed), but this gets less coverage than our lengthy discourse on what is torture – some of which would only be considered hazing at many college fraternities – since it is no longer the Bush administration that is in office. Is this not blatant hypocrisy? The Pelosi, Obama, Cheney drama is a real treat as the facts slowly trickle out.

It seems our politicians are more interested in scoring political points by attacking Bush policies than giving workable alternatives or being objective. When the Somali pirates captured the American ship captain, and his life was “threatened”, the Navy Seals killed the pirates. It is interesting to note that while this plague of pirates off the Somali coast has been costly, they have not been killing their hostages – but it was okay for Obama to give the kill order with no due process. What would have happened if Bush was still in office and he gave the kill order?

You would think this debate would make us appear weak, but I think people who are objective understand that the Obama administration, once confronted with the reality of the world post 9/11, realizes it is much easier to pontificate about appropriate actions in the abstract than deal with reality. As long as we keep in place the deterrents to terrorist attacks, I am not certain Al Qaeda or the Taliban will look at the new administration as weak, irrespective of the sideshow on Capitol Hill.

Fred Young,
Dallas, Texas