For all the talk about Obama not governing as a progressive, take a look at his first not-even-48 hours in office. He’s suspended the Guantanamo Bay military commissions, a first step toward shuttering the entire detention complex. He’s assembled his military commanders to discuss troop withdrawals from Iraq. He’s issued a far-reaching order on transparency in his administration that mandates, among other things, a two-year ban on any ex-lobbyists working on issues they lobbied for. And now he’s shutting down the CIA’s off-the-books detention complexes in the war on terrorism.
According to my friend Eli Lake and his colleague Sara Carter at the Washington Times, Obama has a draft executive order, intended for issuance today, that closes "all permanant detention facilities overseas." It was at sites like these that the torture of the senior-most Al Qaeda detainees, like 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, took place, and despite the transfer of 14 of those detainees to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006, the network of detention facilities remained in place, though circumscribed in their functioning. Detainees taken there had no rights, only the prerogatives of their jailers, and the International Committee of the Red Cross, had no access to them. The revelation that European countries like Poland and Romania cooperated with the U.S. in establishing the secret prisons touched off a scandal in the Council of Europe after a 2007 inquiry.
Lake and Carter also report that detainees in the future held by CIA must have their interrogations fall into line with the Geneva Conventions-compliant guidelines of the revised Army Field Manual on interrogations. (Although bmaz raises questions about how Geneva-compliant the manual really is.) That’s something that some CIA operatives have pragmatic concerns about. Luckily, at 10 a.m., ret. Adm. Dennis Blair, President Obama’s nominee to become director of national intelligence, will testify to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for his confirmation hearing, so we may get some clarity later this morning. (Or, perhaps more likely, Blair will ask to go into closed session to field those questions…) I’ll have more when the hearing starts.
But for progressives, that’s a pretty robust first two days. Oh, and the New York Times‘ Mark Mazzetti and William Glaberson add that an additional executive order will establish a cabinet-level panel to assess where in the United States detainees from Guantanamo will be tried. That sounds a lot like a step toward civilian federal criminal trials. And, hey, Daphne Eviatar, check this out:
The order also directs an immediate assessment of the prison itself to ensure that the men are held in conditions that meet the humanitarian requirements of the Geneva Convention. That provision appeared to be a pointed embrace of the international treaties that the Bush administration often argued did not apply to detainees captured in the war against terrorism.
International law. What a concept.
Crossposted to The Streak, sort of.
Login Here


3 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
at last
at least.
It’s not just tearing down these walls. if word starts coming from Washington that no more settlement walls will go up in the West Bank, then the doubters can pause.
If it weren’t for whistleblowers and journalists’ relentless pursuit of the Bush administration, that never happened.
Further, it’s instructive to consider how it really didn’t happen all that much in reality. I don’t know that a single site outside theatre has been ID’d in any meaningful way. I don’t know of a single host govt copping to a facility. I don’t know of any disclosure really leading to anything concerning a facility. In fact, Bush saying “14 guys previously held somewhere we’re not gonna tell you about are now not there” is probably the fullest disclosure we’ve seen. The distance from this story never breaking to where it currently is, is not a long way.
So, that’s where you got under Bush and how he was treated by investigative journalists of integrity. Are we confident this “let’s just put it behind us” vibe hasn’t set the tone for this to be the end of the story, whether the subject itself end ? A hell of a lot of effort to get almost nothing. Is anyone confident of that same level of effort continuing ?