Given the previous Republican administration’s cavalier disregard for the constitutional privacy rights of American citizens, not to mention the human rights of those deemed to be enemies of America, I fully understand President Obama’s desire to adopt a more principled legal stance in dealing with the threat of terrorism.
Like him I believe that the threat to innocent human lives posed by terrorism is not an excuse for America to eschew its principles and the rule of law. But there are a substantial number of Americans who have been frightened into believing the only way to prevent future terrorist attacks is by ignoring our time-honoured legal principles. It was against this backdrop that Rahm Emanuel first met with Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain in December 2008 to discuss how best to reverse the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policies after Obama took office in January.
Emanuel recognised that fulfilling President Obama’s pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facilities would also require addressing several other issues, such as where to move the remaining suspects, and whether they should have their trials in military or civilian courts.
McCain and Graham didn’t have a problem with Obama signing an executive order forbidding the use of torture methods to extract information from terror suspects. But these Republican Senators also told Emanuel that they couldn’t justify the closing of Guantanamo Bay to their fearful supporters unless Obama agreed to hold the trials of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his cohorts in a military court.
Emanuel concluded that Obama would need some Republican support for the money needed to try terrorist suspects in civilian court – and imprison them should they be convicted. He also concluded that this support would be unlikely, and advised the President accordingly. But after Attorney General Eric Holder presented his arguments in favour of civilian trials – rooted in principle rather than reality – Obama’s senior political advisor David Axelrod weighed in against Emanuel’s more politically astute judgement, persuading the President to let the Justice Department take the lead.
While I can understand Obama’s decision here as what he felt was right and most principled thing to do, the most effective political leaders will always tend to err on the side of what is actually politically possible.
Just as Emanuel warned, bipartisan criticism of the civilian terror trials has been growing ever since they were first announced last year. New York City residents and Democratic leaders have complained about the $200m dollar cost of security for the trials, as well as the disruptions it would cause to businesses and residents in Manhattan. Furthermore, Congress won’t approve the money Obama needs to set up the necessary prison facilities, delaying the closure of Guantanamo Bay.
By the time you read this, President Obama’s advisers will have recommended that he reverse the decision to try the terror suspects in a US civilian court. This is a done deal, even if it’s still yet to be announced. Why? Because Senator Graham has already promised to help secure the funding Obama needs to close Guantanamo Bay and replace it with a new facility in Illinois – provided he changes his mind.
I understand why President Obama believed that trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts would be a symbol of America’s commitment to the rule of law. But doing this just isn’t possible as long as so many Americans remain in fear.
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in International Relations and lectures on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU
