Just whom are we
trying to impress?
That's a question
that oc curred to me
when, on his second
full day in the
presidency, Barack
Obama announced we
would close the
Guantanamo detainee
facility within one
year.
It's a question that
has kept occurring
to me over the last
year and nine days,
even though Obama
and his
administration have
proved unable to
keep that promise.
Whom are we trying
to impress by ruling
out enhanced
interrogation
techniques on
unlawful combatants,
techniques that
produced valuable
intelligence that
saved American
lives? Whom are we
trying to impress by
limiting questioning
to the Army Field
Manual?
That's a good guide
for handling
prisoners of war and
other lawful
combatants covered
by international
law. But whom are we
trying to impress by
extending those
protections to those
who are not covered
by the Geneva
Conventions or other
treaties we have
signed?
Whom are we trying
to impress by trying
Khalid Sheik
Mohammed in civilian
courts after he
already pled guilty
to a military
tribunal? And trying
him in New York
City, where the
trial will cost
something like $1
billion and tie up
Lower Manhattan for
years?
Would these people
we are trying to
impress be that much
less impressed if
the administration
belatedly follows
the advice of Mayor
Bloomberg and
Democratic Sen.
Dianne Feinstein and
stages that trial on
a military base or
elsewhere outside of
New York City?
And whom are we
trying to impress by
treating the failed
Christmas bomber
Umar Farouk
Abdulmutallab not as
a military combatant
but as a common
civilian criminal,
even though he
launched an attack
on America from
outside the country?
Whom are we trying
to impress by
administering
Miranda warnings and
telling him that he
has a right to a
lawyer and the right
to remain silent?
If the answer to
these questions is
that we are trying
to impress Islamist
terrorists, we've
clearly failed.
It's a matter of
simple fact that the
announcement that
we'd close
Guantanamo and other
policy changes
didn't prevent
Abdulhakim Muhammad
from killing US
soldiers at the
Little Rock
recruiting station
last June. It didn't
prevent Nidal Hasan
from killing US
soldiers at Fort
Hood in November. It
didn't prevent
Abdulmutallab from
attempting to blow
up Northwest flight
253 over US or
Canadian airspace on
Christmas Day.
Public-opinion polls
in the Arab and
Muslim world have
shown only slight
upticks in opinion
about America in the
months after Obama's
speeches in Cairo
and Turkey and after
these administration
policy changes.
Terrorists did not
say, "Gosh, now that
Obama is closing
Guantanamo and
terrorists are being
given Miranda
rights, I've got to
change my mind and
decide that the
United States is a
really nifty country
and that freedom and
democracy are good
things after all."
But perhaps our goal
was to convince not
terrorists but
"world opinion." Are
the government and
the billion people
of India going to
think better of
America if we treat
terrorists more
gently? Not likely
-- they're the
targets of
terrorists
themselves.
How about the
government and the
billion people of
China? My guess is
that they see this
as weakness, which
they would never
indulge.
The governments and
peoples of Europe?
Well, certainly some
governments would be
pleased, as would
the readers of
left-wing newspapers
and those who attend
international
conferences. But
polling shows that
Europeans tend to
take a tougher stand
on these matters
than the elites who
dominate the
international
dialogue.
So whom are we
trying to impress?
The answer seems to
be left-wing
intellectuals,
academics, voters --
"the educated
class," in David
Brooks' term -- who
decried George W.
Bush's policies as
reeking of fascism
and dictatorship. We
are making policies
to please those who
hang out in
law-school faculty
lounges.
Their numbers turn
out to be less
formidable than the
amount of coverage
they have received
in sympathetic media
suggests. For that
we have evidence
from Massachusetts,
where Republican
Senate candidate
Scott Brown called
for handing over KSM
and the Christmas
bomber to military
tribunals. His
Democratic opponent
Martha Coakley
disagreed. She
carried "the
educated class,"
blacks and
Hispanics. Brown
carried just about
everyone else and,
even in
Massachusetts, won.
Which leads me to
ask, again: Just
whom are we trying
to impress?
Michael Barone is
senior political
analyst for The
Washington Examiner.
